Karnataka

Kolar

CC/64/2018

Smt.Anjinamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Uiversal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.N.Venkateshappa

11 Oct 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 26.07.2018

Date of Order: 11.10.2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 11^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

C.C. NO. 63 OF 2018 IS COMBINED WITH C.C.NO. 64 OF 2018

 

C.C.NO.63 OF 2018

SRI. Srirame Gowda,

S/o. Venkatesh Gowda,

Aged About 63 Years,

R/at: Thoradevandahalli Village,

& Post, Kolar Taluk & District.                                         ….  Complainant.

C.C.NO.64 OF 2018

SMT. Anjinamma,

W/o. Ramakishnappa,

Aged About 51 Years,

R/at: Veerapura Village,

Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk & District.                              ….  Complainant.

(In both the above case Complainants are

Rep. by one Sri. N.Venkateshappa, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

Universal Sompo General Insurance

Company Limited, No.217/A, 4^th

Floor, K V V Samrat, 3^rd Main,

Outer Ring Road, Kasturi Nagara,

Bangalore-43.                                                               ….  Opposite Party No.1.

(Rep. by Sri.B. Kumar, Advocate)

 

2) The Manager,

AXIX Bank, No.326, AR No.337,

Ganesha Temple Street, Cottonpet,

Kolar-563 101.                                                            ….  Opposite Party No.2.

(Rep. by Sri. N.G. Vasudev Moorthy, Advocate)

 

3) Joint Director,

Department of Agriculture,

Old D.C. Compound, Kolar District,

Kolar.                                                                            ….  Opposite Party No.3.

(Ex-parte)

(In both the above cases Ops are same)

                       

 

-:COMMON ORDERS:-

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA,PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant in the above said two cases filed complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the OP to pay amount of Rs.41,918/-in C.C. No.63/2018 and Rs.32,005.30 in C.C. No.64/2018 along with travelling expenses of Rs.2,000/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum and prays to allow the above said complaint.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant’s case in C.C. No.63/2018 is that, he has insured the Ragi crop raised in his Sy. No.3, to an extent of 0.27 guntas, Sy No.1/8 to an extent of 0.10 guntas, Sy No.78 to an extent of 1.27 guntas and Sy No.66 measuring to an extent of 0.18 guntas, situated at Thoradevandahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk and District, for the year 2016-2017.  The complainant in C.C. No.63/2018 has paid premium of Rs.185.44, Rs.68.68, Rs.460.63 and Rs.123.62 respectively vide his application No.814767.  The proposal of the complainant has been accepted by the OP and assured to pay Rs.9,271.80, Rs.3,434.00, Rs.23,031.60 and Rs.6,181.20 respectively.  The complainant approached the OP personally after he lost his Ragi Crop due to drought in Kolar Taluk and requested to pay the assured amount.  The Ops have failed to pay the same in spite of several approaches made by him and he suffered mental agony and there is a deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  The complainant has issued legal notice on 03.01.2018.  The same was duly served on the Ops and in spite of that they have not replied.  The complainant visited the Ops on four to five times and spent towards travelling expenses which causes hardship and mental agony and prays to allow the complaint.

 

03.   The brief facts of the complainant’s case in C.C. No.64/2018 is that, she has insured the Ragi crop raised in her Sy. No.10/1 to an extent of 0.21 guntas and Sy No.10/2 to an extent of 0.07 guntas, situated at Veerapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk & District for the year 2016-2017 and paid premium of Rs.144.23 and Rs.48.08 respectively vide her application No.811796.  The proposal of the complainant has been accepted by the OP and assured to pay Rs.7,211.40 and Rs.2,403.80 respectively.  The complainant also insured the Thogari Crop raised in her Sy. No.28/p2 to an extent of 0.13 guntas and Sy No.28/3 to an extent of 1.01 guntas, situated at Veerpura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk for the year 2016-2017 and paid premium amount of Rs.107.67 and Rs.340.14 vide her application No.945547.  The proposal of the complainant has been accepted by the OP and assured to pay Rs.5,383.30 and Rs.17,006.80 respectively.  The complainant approached the OP personally after she lost her Ragi and Thogari Crops due to drought in Kolar Taluk and requested to pay the assured amounts.  The Ops have failed to pay the same in spite of several approaches made by her and she suffered mental agony and there is a deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  The complainant has issued legal notice on 29.12.2017.  The same was duly served on the Ops and in spite of that they have not replied.  The complainant visited the Ops on four to five times and spent towards travelling expenses which causes hardship and mental agony and prays to allow the complaint.

 

04.   In C.C. No.63/2018 along with the complaint the complainant has submitted following 06 documents:-

(i) Insurance Proposal

(ii) Acknowledgement

(iii) RTCs 4 in number

(iv) Legal Notices

(v) Postal Acknowledgements 2 in number

(vi) Aadhaar Card.

 

05.   In C.C. No.64/2018 along with the complaint the complainant has submitted following 06 documents:-

(i) Insurance Proposals 2 in numbers

(ii) Acknowledgement 2 in numbers

(iii) RTCs 4 in number

(iv) Legal Notices 2 in numbers

(v) Postal Acknowledgements 2 in number

(vi) Aadhaar Card.

 

06.   After service of notice the OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel.  OP No.3 in spite of service of notice did not appear before this forum and it has been placed exparte in both the cases. 

 

07.   OP No.1 filed similar version in both the cases and it has specifically contended in C.C. No.63/2018 that, as per the complainant application No.814767 the OP No.1 has already paid the claim amount on 22.08.2017 with respect to above said four survey numbers and the said payment details are mentioned at the end of Para-27 of the version and in C.C. No.64/2018, as per the complainant application No.811796 and 945547 the OP No.1 has already paid the claim amounts on 22.08.2017 with respect to above said four survey numbers and the said payment details are mentioned at the end of Para-27 of the version and there is no cause of action and prays to dismiss the above said complaints with exemplary costs.

 

08.   OP No.2 has also filed similar version in the above said two cases and denied about Para-3 of the complaint with respect to payment of premium amount with OP No.2 and also denied that after loss of crop the complainant approached the Bank are all denied as false.  So also denied about the issuance of legal notice and service of the same.  And so also denied about the visiting the OP No.2 four to five times and spent Rs.2,000/- travelling expenses and suffered mental agony, etc are all denied as false.  This OP has specifically contended that, there is no any allegations against this OP and nothing to do with the allegations made by the complainant and no premiums were paid with OP No.2 and the documents referred are not pertaining to this OP.  The complainant without looking unnecessarily impleaded this OP to the proceedings and caused irreparable loss and injury and prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

09.   After filing version the case was posted to hear on maintainability and on 03.10.2018 the complainant filed Memo in both the cases and heard arguments.

 

10.   Now the common points that do arise for our consideration in the above two cases are:-

POINT NO.1:-  Whether the complaint is

maintainable for the relief prayed for in the complaints?

 

POINT NO.2:-  What order?

 

11.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT NO.1:- In the Negative

 

POINT NO.2:- As per final order for the

following:-

 

REASONS

12.   POINT NO.1:-  The complainant in both the above case filed the above complaint to issue directions to the Ops to get the assured amount for loss of the crops as the complainant paid the premium amount with respect to survey numbers of complainants land.  The complainants in the above cases in spite of approaching the Ops they did not get any reliefs and approached this Forum.

 

13.   The complainant in C.C. No.63/2018 has paid premium amount with respect to his lands vide application No.814767 and the complainant in C.C. No.64/2018 has paid premium amount with respect to her survey numbers vide application Nos. 811796 and 945547.  But here in this case the OP No.1 has specifically contended in C.C. No.63/2018 that, it has already paid the assured amount with respect to application No.814767 on 22.08.2017 for loss of Ragi crops pertaining to four survey numbers of the complainant and in C.C. No.64/2018 also OP No.1 has specifically contended that, it has already paid the assured amount with respect to application No.811796 and 945547 with respect to the loss of Ragi and Thogari crops pertaining to four survey numbers of the complainant and the said payment was made during the year 2017 itself and there is no case is made out against OPs. 

 

14.   The OP No.2 in its version has specifically contended that, for the above two cases no premium amount has been paid with this OP No.2-Bank and no legal notice was served to said Bank and the documents referred by the complainant are not pertaining to this OP No.2 and the complainant has unnecessarily impleaded this OP No.2 and caused irreparable loss and injury.  In this regard it is relevant to state here that, on 03.10.2018 the complainant in the above two cases has filed Memo praying to dismiss the complaint against OP No.2 and accordingly the case against OP No.2 is dismissed.  As the OP No.1 has already paid the assured amount to the complainant in the above two cases and hence we hold that, there is no deficiency of service against OP No.1.  The complainant has filed the said complaint without proper knowledge and due to his illiteracy and it is not just necessary to impose any cost against Ops in the ends of justice.  Hence the complainant in the above said two cases is not entitled for any relief as prayed and accordingly we answer this point in the negative.

 

15.   POINT NO.2:- In view of our finding on Point No. 1 and the discussions made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. No.63/2018 and the complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. No.64/2018 are dismissed.  No order as to costs.

02.   We direct to keep the original of this common order in C.C. No.63/2018 and the copy thereto in C.C. No.64/2018.

 

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 11^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2018)

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT