Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/420/2019

Sri V.R.Sandeep, S/o V.Rama Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.G.Dileepkumar

19 Jul 2023

ORDER

                                                              COMPLAINT FILED ON: 22/07/2019

                                                                        DISPOSED ON: 19/07/2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:420/2019

DATED:  19^th July 2023

PRESENT: Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

                  Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER                     

                 

                    

COMPLAINANT/S	Sri. V. R. Sandeep      S/o Rama Reddy Aged about 35 Years, Agriculturist, R/o Kasavarahatty Village, Dyamavvanahally Majure, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk.   (Rep. by Advocate Sri. S.G.Dileep Kumar)
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTY/S	The Branch Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank, Kallahally Branch, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk and District. (Rep by Sri A.M. Rudramuni Advocate)   The Authorised Signatory, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co., Ltd., 3rd Floor, KVV Samrat, 217/A, 3rd Main, Out Ring Road, Kasturi Nagara, Bangalore-560 043. (Rep by Sri K. Mohan Bhat Advocate)   The Joint Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department, R.M.C. Yard Main Road, Chitradurga. (Rep by Sri D.G.P. Advocate)

 

:JUDGMENT:

 

Order Delivered by Hon’ble President, Kum. H.N. MEENA.

                                                                                                                         The complainant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opponents. The complainant has prayed for direct to pay the insurance premium assurance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- insurance premium assured amount towards onion and also towards mental shock, agony pain, and also towards financial loss incurred by the complainant to get the good crops, due to non-falling of the rain well in time, And to grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble commission deems to grant in the circumstances of the above case in the interest of justice.

 

2. BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:

   The complainants submits in his complaint that, the complainant having agriculture land bearing Sy.No. 44/1B measuring 2 Acres, 30 Guntas, and the said land situated at Dyamavvanahally it is irrigated land having borewell with IP set.  All the revenue documents are standing in the name of the complainant. In the year 2017-18 he sowing the onion crop in Kharif period to the above said land and invested huge amount of Rs.2 Lakhs towards purchase of onion seeds, manure and fertilizer and chemicals and labour charges cultivation to grow more onion crop and get more income from the above said onion crop if the complainants are succeeded in getting good onion crop, the complainants are getting more than 5,00,000/- from the above said onion crop. 

 

3. The complainant paid sum of Rs.4,115/- towards premium of onion crop and assured sum of Rs.82,317/- under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bhima Yojana (PMFBY) scheme and the same was paid to the Opponent insurance Co. tied with 2^nd Opponent under ACK/Proposal number PKGB0010681/350897. Complainant having SB account holder with the OP No.1 and getting crop load from the OP No.1.

 

4. The complainant further submits in the complaint that the complainants sowing the said onion seeds in good whether condition, anticipate that the rain was fallen well in time, then the said crops are grown up very well, due to non-fallen of the rain well in time, due to draught there is insufficient of water, and bore well water also completely stopped due to said reason the complainants are unable to get good water sources, lower water sources from the borewell and complete failure of the rain, the existing onion crop completely dried thereby the complainants are suffered lot, put into great mental shock, agony and pain, deep sorrow, and the complainants are put into great financial loss, loss of their earnings, and they are facing very hard-days, The complaints expectation are completely spoiled due to non-fallen of the rain well in time.

 

 

5. Further the complainant inspite of several oral requests and demands, the opponents have not paid any amount of compensation to the complainant even to this date. The OPs have not paid the insurance admissible assured mount and damages, why the OPs have not paid the assured amount under the above said scheme to the complainant and others the OPs neglect to comply the request, the OPs are deliberately fails to discharge their service than the desired service. Further OPs have collected the more than crores of rupees from the farmers and assured them to pay the amount in case of failure of crops due to natural calamities’ but the OPs have failed to pay the assured insurance amount, to the complainants, and other famers even to this date, this is against the principle of natural justice.

 

6. As per the policy terms and conditions, the opponents have bound to indemnify the failure of crops due to natural calamities and to pay the benefit claims to the complainant without delay even the matter immediately impact with them. The opponents never discharged their deliberate service by the deficiency of the service of the OPs. The complainant have demanded and requested the opponents to settle the claim and submitted the application that the opponents without any valid, bonafide and reasonable grounds repudiate the claim the complainant’s sustained financial loss and without reasonable ground opponents have refused the claim hence this complaint.

 

7. After registered the complaint, notice issued by this Hon’ble Commission was served to the opponents. OP No.1 to 3 appeared through its counsels. Wherefore, opponent No.1 to 3 are filed their versions as follows.

 

8. The opponent No.1 stated in the version that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law. Joint Director of Agriculture, Panchayath Development Officer are necessary parties to this proceedings, without adding them the complaint is not maintainable on this ground. The lands come under Village Panchayath Area with GPA for failure of crops / damage crops and to submit the entire report to Govt. for short fall/percentage of crop. On basis of report, percentage of short fall of crops then the insurance company has issued eligible compensation amount to the insurer.  OP No.1 is only collecting the insurance premium amount with application from the complainant and the same is sent to opposite party No.2 and it is a Govt. Policy to collect the insurance premium as per PMFBY Scheme.  OP No.1 Bank is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant for due to failure of crops and damages. OP No.2 is to pay compensation to the complainants for failure of crops/damages. OP No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation or any costs to the complainant and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP No.1 Bank with cost.

9. The opponent No.1 stated in the version that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or facts since there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent on the following grounds, which are without prejudice to one another. The petition is bad for necessary parties of Joint Director of Agriculture, Panchayat Development Officer, hence this petition is not maintainable in law. It is submitted that this petitioner had paid premium to cover Onion (irrigated) crop in Chitradurga District, Kasaba Hobli a sum insured through Saving Account, under a ACK. No.350897 to cover Onion (irrigated) crop, State Government in Samrakshne portal 2017 mentioned Nayakanahatti Hobli Onion (irrigated) Threshold Yield per Ha is 5533.56 and CCE Actual yield per Ha is 16308.00 and shortfall is -194.710619. As per the data given by the Government, there was no losing of crops in the said Gram Panchayat in year 2017. As per the Application of complainant No.350897 this opposite party would like to inform to this Hon'ble Commission that the CCE Yield Result Is Higher Than The Threshold Yield, Hence There Is No Loss Of Crop Of The Said Farmer And Therefore No Claim Is Reflected In The Said Portal, based on the above date provided to us, we are not liable to pay compensation.

 

10. OP-2 further submitted that, the Agriculture Department, Government of Karnataka should be made the first respondent as the above scheme is implemented Government of Karnataka, and we are only facilitating the implementation of the above scheme as per the directives of Government of Karnataka and state Govt. in some of the districts notified and chosen by them. It is submitted that there is no direct contract subsisting between the farmer and the insurance company, and that State Government and Karnataka State Govt. is implementing the PMFBY scheme by means of a software platform created by them called Samrakshane Portal. It is submitted that all the data relating to the farmers, viz., Area covered, crops grown, yield loss, amount of loss payable are worked out by Government of Karnataka and the details of beneficiaries to whom the amounts are required to be paid are furnished by the Government through the Samrakshane Portal, and that the determination of the beneficiaries and the amounts to be paid is made by the Government of Karnataka and the same is furnished by them in the Samrakshane Portal, and that we are payments are made by us only in respect of the beneficiaries identified by Government of Karnataka in the Samrakshane Portal for the amounts mentioned therein. The allegation stated in para 5 to 9 are not admitted, and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the each one of the said averments and pray for dismissal of the complaint against the opponent.

 

11. The OP No.3 stated that, Crop Insurance Scheme in Karnataka State is being implemented in a transparent manner through Samrakshne Portal. OP No.3 it is not known that the complainant has paid money for crop insurance for their masked maize crop as per the information of Conservation Portal 2017-18. Government of Karnataka Order dated: 12/05/2017 under General Crop Estimate Survey conducted by the State Government to calculate and settle the crop insurance loss by considering only the yield information found on the basis of the crop harvesting experiment. Other yield estimation methods such as guarantee or any department, organization, state government has notified that the yield loss estimation information declared as famine, drought and flood shall not be considered for calculating crop insurance loss compensation under this scheme. According to the information received from the Joint Director of Agriculture, Commissionerate of Agriculture, Bangalore, there is a crop insurance difference of
-194.711 for onion (irrigated) crop in Chitradurga district, Chitradurga Kasaba hobli insurance unit for Kharif season 2017-2018.

 

12. OP No.3 further submits that, complainant stated in the complaint it is not known whether the scheme has been insured for an amount of Rs.82,317/-. Further, it is not correct that the complainant has asked for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- Because the OP No.3 has not committed service deficiency. Therefore, in the complaint filed by the complainant, the OP No.3 have been requested to be removed and acquitted.

 

13. The complainant has examined as PW-1 and the documents were got marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 and the opponent-1 has examined as DW-1 and the documents were marked as Ex
B-1 to Ex.B-2. And opponent-2 has examined as DW-2 and the documents were marked as Ex.B-3 to Ex.B-5.  Opponent-3 has examined as DW-3 and the documents were marked as Annexure-6 to Annexure-7.  Closed the evidence on both side parties. Heard the arguments.

14. Now, the points that arise for our consideration for                   decision of above complaint are that:

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency of service on the part of OPs, on account of not settling the claim of complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
3. What order?

15. On perusal of pleadings and the evidence of the complainant and our findings on the above points are as below:

Point No. (1 & 2)  In the Negative

Point No. (3) As per the final order

:REASON:

16. We have gone through the pleading of complaint and documents submitted by the both parties. The complainant examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.A-1 to 2 i.e., Ex.A-1 is RTC copy and Ex.A-2 is  Acknowledgement (PMFBY), OP-1 examined as DW-1 and got marked documents Ex.B-1 to B-2 i.e., Ex.B-1 is Proposal form (PMFBY), Ex.B-2 is Acknowledgement (PMFBY), and the opponent-2 has examined as DW-2 and the documents were marked as Ex.B-3 to Ex.B-5. Opponent No.3 examined as DW-3 and got marked annexure No.6 & 7.

 

17. The crux of the matter in the present case is whether the complainant has been able to prove any deficiency of service on the part of OPs, on account of not settling the claim of complainants in their complaint. In the present case, the complainant has sown onion crop in the above land in the year 2017-18 with a huge investment and under PMFBY the premium for the said crop is Rs. 4,115/- paid. The complainants have suffered huge loss in crop yield in their lands covering Chitradurga taluk area, they urged the OPs for insurance claim, which they are postponing despite getting legal notices in this regard.

 

18. The OPs contended that the complainant have to produce documents like shortage of rainfall which will be issued by the survey department to know the actual shortfall of the rain and also the complainant has to produce data towards Samrakshane Portal for enrollment and also for claim settlement purpose and in that it will be mentioned the actual and correct information and claim amounts are lodged in ID of Samrakshana Portal. As per the government guidelines assessment of claim amount is on the basis of the loss assessed data (on the basis of CCEs conducted by government) submitted by the government to Insurance Company. On submission of same data Threshold Yield per Ha is 5533.56 and CCE Actual yield per Ha is 16308.00 and shortfall is -194.710619. As actual yield was recorded more than threshold yield then there was no shortfall for the insurance unit of complaint. As there was no shortfall then also complainant’s claim becomes not admissible for Yield/CCE based payment.

  

19. We perused Ex.B-4 submitted by OP-2. Accordingly the Proceedings of the Government of Karnataka, Government Order No.KRUEI/75/KRUKAIU/2017, Bengaluru, Dated 29/08/2017 in the said order as follows….

For reasons mentioned in the preamble, the provision for prevented/failed sowing and prevented planting/germination claims is hereby invoked for the Gram Panchayaths of Hiriyur and Challakere taluk for the “Groundnut (RF) crop”, Chitradurga taluk for the Maize (RF) crop and Hiriyur taluk for the Sunflower (RF) crop of Chitradurga District during Kharif 2017. That the Complainant’s Grama Panchayath area is coming under the said Guidelines for the crop of Maize (RF), and not an Onion (irrigated) crop and hence the complainant is not entitled for the crop Insurance.

20. As per the citation of Hon’ble State Commission, Karnataka in the matter of ….. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Vs C. Venkataramana and others Appeal Nos.1863 to 1870 of 2018 reported in 2022 (1) CPR 1 (Karnataka) “Complainants were covered under the Crop Insurance Scheme, on failure of rain & other related natural calamities, complainants have suffered loss- Amount unsettled – Complaint filed – OP’s were directed to pay Insured Amounts to the Farmers/Complainants-OP’s filed appeals against orders of District Commission.

       “Whether the Complainant/Farmers have furnished the required details with regard to the loss of their Insured Crop in their respective lands “Forum has not made efforts to get the Report with regard to the alleged loss of the Insured Crops assessed by the OPs. On examination of the records, we could not find any Report with regard to the loss of Crop submitted by the Government. In the absence of such particulars, awarding compensation by the District Commission/Forum on hypothetical basis cannot survive.  In order to award compensation on the basis of assessment of loss of crop suffered by each one of the Farmer/Complainant, some evidence is required”

 

    20. In view of the authority referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the complainants has failed to prove that point No.2 - 3 in their favour. The complainant has not produced any supporting documents of area survey report, crop failure report and short rain fall report from the concerned departments in support of his claim. It is the case of the complainant that the claim was not settled till now. Admittedly, the complainant did not specifically mention the particulars regarding the yielding and the percentage of loss, which he had suffered. The OP said that as per data given by Govt. there is no losing of crops in the said village in the year 2017 and further stated that on verification of application of complainant, they found that, CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield, hence there is no crop loss of the former and no claim is reflected in the portal. In view of the above, and according to the guidelines of NAIS there is no liability in payment of crop insurance amount to complainant on the part of OPs as alleged. Hence the Point No.1 and 2 is answered in the Negative.  The complaint is devoid of merits and needs to be rejected. Hence the following.

 

21. Point No.3: In view of the facts discussed Point No.1 to 2 and for the reasons stated therein we proceed to pass the following:

::ORDER::

                  The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.

                 Communicate the order to both the parties.

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 19^th July 2023.)

 

  

                          Sd/-                                                Sd/-

            LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

-:ANNEXURES:-

 

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

  PW-1:- Sri. V. R. Sandeep S/o Rama Reddy, by way of

         Affidavit of evidence.

 

 

Witness examined on behalf of opponents:

 

OP-1 DW-1: Sri Thippeswamy H S/o Hanumappa, by way of affidavit       

                   Of evidence.

 

OP-2 DW-2: Sri Ramesh.P. S/o K. Puttaramu, by way of affidavit of

                    evidence.

 

OP-3 DW-3: Sri Nataraj S. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chitradurga

                    by way of affidavit of evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	RTC copy
02	Ex-A-2:-	Copy of Proposal form-UTIB0001019-171063

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of opponents:

 

 

01	Ex-B-1:-	Copy of Proposal form-Application No.350897
02	Ex-B-2:-	Copy of Proposal form Acknowledgement
03	Ex-B-3:-	Copy of Samrakshane portal shortfall percentage report
04	Ex-B-4:-	Proceedings of the Government of Karnataka order dated 29/08/2017.
05	Ex-B-5:-	Govt. of Karnataka Notification dated 12/05/2017
06	Annexure-6:-	Govt. of Karnataka Notification dated 12/05/2017
07	Annexure-7:-	Crop report submitted by Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chitradurga

 

 

 

                           Sd/-                                                Sd/-

            LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

 

*GM.