Complaint filed on: 05-04-2018

                                                      Disposed on: 28-01-2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No.14/2018

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF JANUARY 2019

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI.BALAKRISHNA V.MASALI, MEMBER

Complainant: -

Narasimhamurthy

S/o. late Dasanna @ Dasappa,

25 years,

R/at Karethimmanahalli,

Chikkabanagere post,

Hulikunte hobli,

Sira taluk, Tumakuru dist.

(By Advocate Sri.E.Hanumantharayappa)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The Manager,

Canara Bank, Baraguru branch, Sira Taluk,

Tumakuru district.

2. The Manager,

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

(Pradhan Manthri Fasal Bheema Yojana-P.M.F.B.Y), Kasturinagar, Bengaluru.

 (OP No.1 by advocate Sri.Jagadeeshappa)

(OP No.2- Exparte)

ORDER

SRI.BALAKRISHNA V.MASALI, MEMBER

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP No.1 and 2 (herein after called as the OPs), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant prays to direct the OP No.1 and 2 to pay insured amount of Rs.40,000=00 and expenses of Rs.20,000=0 in total Rs.60,000=00 and grant such other relief as deemed fit, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief fact of the complaint is as under.

          The complainant is an agriculturist and he has insured his crop grown in his land bearing Sy.No.69/3 (1-12) situated at Doddabanagere village, Hulikunte hobli, Sira taluk and Tumakuru district with the 2^nd OP through 1^st OP for the year 2016-17 by paying premium amount of Rs.4,000=00=00 dated 30-6-2016 with the 2^nd OP through the 1^st OP bank.

          The complainant further submitted that, on account of failure of rain during the year 2016-17, the complainant entire crops were dried up and spoiled. As a result of it, the complainant has suffered loss and the same was brought to the notice of the OPs and requested them to compensate the loss suffered by him, but the OPs have not complied his request. Hence, the complainant has come up with the present complaint.

3. After service of notice, the 1^st OP has appeared through his counsel and filed version. The 2^nd OP has not appeared before the forum and he was called out absent and he has been placed exparte.

          4. In the version, the 1^st OP submitted that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st OP and there is no cause of action to file the complaint. There is no negligent act on the part of the 1^st OP. The other allegations made in the Para no.2 to 7 of the complaint are not within the knowledge of the 1^st OP.  

          The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainant remitted Rs.4,000=00 to his SB Account no.0679101017051. The 1^st OP sent the premium amount of Rs.3,036=00 to the 2^nd OP through the SB account of the complainant.  The 1^st OP denied the responsibility of settling the insurance amount. Other averment made in the complaint is denied as false and baseless.

          The 1^st OP further submitted that, the subject insurance scheme was introduced in the year 2016-2017 and this scheme is called as Pradhan Manthri Fasal Bima Youjana (PMFBY) and weather based crop insurance scheme (WBCIS). The 2^nd OP entrusted the work of settlement of insurance claims and insurance premium collected by the 1^st OP from various applicants of the bank Customers and remitted the same to the 2^nd OP through RTGS on different dates. This amount includes the premium amount of Rs.3,036=00 of the complainant and this premium amount paid to the 2^nd OP is reflecting in the SB account of the complainant.

          1^st OP further submitted that, after receipt of the premium amount of Rs.3,036=00, the 2^nd OP accepted the insurance proposal of the complainant. Hence, the 2^nd OP is liable to settle the claim of the complainant. The remittance of the insurance premium is only a free service rendered by the 1^st OP on persuasive ground without having any obligation to pay any compensation. It is the duty of the complainant to pay the insurance premium to the 2^nd OP directly. The 1^st OP is taken initiative to remit the same so as to safe guard the interest of the complainant. The service of the 1^st OP is only an intermediary between the complainant and the 2^nd OP. The insurance claim will be directly credited to the complainant’s SB account by 2^nd OP. The 1^st OP is not liable to pay any compensation in any manner. Hence the 1^st OP prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.

5. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant and the 1^st OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced documents. The 1^st OP has produced documents where were marked as Ex-R1 and R2. We have heard the arguments of both parties and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides scrupulously. 

6. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1.      Whether the complainants have proved there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

2.      What order?

7. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:          In the affirmative

Point No.2:          As per order below

REASONS

8. Admittedly, the complainant had paid the crop insurance premium amount of Rs.3,036 for his grown crop in his land with the 1^st OP bank. The contention of the complainant is that, the OP No.1 and 2 have received the insurance premium amount, due to failure of rain during the year 2016, the complainant’s entire crops dried up and spoiled. But the OPs were not settling the crop insured amount, even though several requests made by the complainant.  As per the evidence of the 1^st OP, the 1^st OP has collected the application from the complainant and remitted the same to the 2^nd OP insurance company. The 1^st OP is contended that, he has collected the premium amount from the complainant and the same was remitted to the 2^nd OP-Insurance Company. The 2^nd OP accepted the crop insurance premium amount. Hence, the 2^nd OP is liable to settle the claim of the complainant.

          9. To substantiate the above said facts, the 1^st OP has produced deposit challan of the SB account of the complainant/Ex-R1 and account statement of the complainant issued by the 1^st OP bank/Ex-R2. The above evidence of the 1^st OP and the complainant remains unchallenged; to disbelieve this evidence of the 1^st OP bank, there is no rebuttal evidence. Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the 1^st OP.       

10. Admittedly, the complainant’s entire crops were dried up. Further, the 1^st OP bank has transferred the premium amount to the 2^nd OP insurance company which was collected from the complainant. As per Ex-R2, it is clearly reveals that, the 2^nd OP–Insurance Company has accepted the complainant’s application and premium amount. Once the 2^nd OP accepted the premium amount from the complainant, it is bounden duty of the 2^nd OP to pay the insured amount to the complainant as per the Govt. order. By not doing so, the 2^nd OP has committed deficiency in service. Further the complainant has insured his crops with the 2^nd OP, due to failure of the rain in the year 2016-2017. The 2^nd OP made the complainant to suffer. Therefore, we hold that, the complainant is entitled for the insured amount and compensation along with litigation cost. Further, with regard to the 1^st OP is only a mediator between the complainant and the insurer and the 1^st OP has done their duty. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st OP.  Hence, the complaint filed against the 1^st OP is hereby dismissed.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the Affirmative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

The 2^nd OP is directed to settle the crop insured amount to the complainant along with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint to till the date of realization.

The 2^nd OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000=00 and litigation cost of Rs.3,000=00 to the complainant.

This order is to be complied by the 2^nd OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. 

The complaint filed against the 1^st OP is hereby dismissed.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 28^th day of January 2019).

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT