Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/294/2018

Haseena Jan D/o Late M.B.Basha sab - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Shreya Tevhnologies - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Ashok.V

28 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:294/2018

DATED:28^th  July 2022

PRESENT: -Sri. M.I.SHIGLI. B.A., LL.M.,      PRESIDENT

 

                        Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B. COM., LL.B., MEMBER       

                                      

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

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	1 . Haseena Jan D/o Late M.B.Basha sab, H.D.Pura Village, Holalkere Taluk Chitradurga.   ( Rep by Advocate Sri. Ashok.V)
V/S
.….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	1 . The Manager, Shreya Technologies, Near Bus Stand, HD Pura, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga. (Exparte)   2 . The Manager, Universal sampoo general insurance co ltd., 3rd floor, Samrat, 217/A, 3rd Main, Outer Ring road, Ka    sthurinagar, Bangalore-560043. ( Rep by Advocate Sri. K. Mohan Bhat)

:ORDER:

 

Sri. M.I.SHIGLI. B.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

 

The present complaint is filed U/s 12 of CP Act 1986, seeking for the relief of an order directing the OPs pay Rs.3,00,000/- interest @ 15% p.a. from 30/07/2012 till its realization and also Rs.50,000/- towards financial loss, mental shock and agony etc.

BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:

The complainant is stated to be the owner of the land bearing RS No.243 measuring 3 acres of Nandana Hosur Village of Holalkere Taluk.

  2. In 2017-18, the complainant is said to have sown cotton seeds in the said land investing Rs.30,000/- per acre and was expected have a crop of Rs.3,00,000/-.

 

3. The complainant said to have insured his Crop by payment of premium of Rs.2,610/- under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) on 30/07/2017. It’s stated that, due to draught he could not get the expected Crop and thereby he sustained loss.

 

4. He has stated that, the Government of Karnataka has declared various Taluks in Karnataka hit by drought, including Challakere taluk. It is stated that, despite these facts the OPs have not disbursed the insured amount of Rs. 52,206/- as per scheme.

 

5. The complainant is stated to have sent legal notice for which the OPs have not cared. Hence he is constrained to file this complainant.

 

   The OP No.2 has filed its version traversing the contents of complainant.  Though the OP-2 has admitted the insurance of crops of the complainant, has denied that there was failure of Crop in the year 2017-18 and hence the claim of the complainant is not maintainable.

 

6. The tone and tenor of the complainant though is negating the complaint, it is stated that, at para No.16 of its version that….. “The CCE is higher than the threshold yield in the said Talya Village Panchayath hence there is no loss to the formers and hence no claim is reflected in the portal”.

 

7. The Opponent has further stated in para No.19 of its version that the complainant has not produced any documents that, the concerned authorities declared that, of the village of complainant, as drought hit village.

 

8. Based on the contentions and pleadings and the evidence let in by both parties, the only point for our consideration is:

 

1. Whether the complainant has proved that the OP’s have not settled the claim, though his crops were insured under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) of the Government and there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs.

 

2) What order?

Our findings on the above points or as below:

1. In the Negative
2. As per the final order for following reasons

 

9. The complainant got herself examined as PW-1 and reiterated the contents of the complainant and got marked documents at Ex.A-1 to A-5. Ex.A-1 is the copy of acknowledgement, Ex.A-2 is the property extract card of his land, Ex.A-3  is the legal notice, Ex.A-4 & Ex.A-5 are the postal window receipts, for having sent Ex.A-3 and on the examination has closed her side.

 

10. The OP No.2 got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.B-1 to B-3 which are public documents.

 

Ex.B-1 is the proceedings of the Government of Karnataka,
Ex.B-2 Kannada version of the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) 2017 action plan and Ex.B-3 is the extract of portal “Samrakshane”.

The oral evidence let in by both parties is nothing but the reiteration of the complaint and the version of filed by the both parties respectively.

 

The crux of the matter in the present case lies in the question whether the complainant is able to prove her contention, and that whether complainant has done any effort to convince us as to the declaration by the village of Nandana Hosur as hit by the drought by appropriate authorities. The obvious answer is “No”. Hence, this commission has no other go except to answer point No.1 in the Negative.

 

The Hon’ble State Commission 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 – Therefore, remanded to the District Commission to re-consider afresh”

 

In view of the authority referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that point No.1 in her favour. Hence the Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.

 

As for as Point No.2 is concerned we hold that, as Point No.1 is answered in the negative, the necessary answer to Point No.2 will be the following and we answer that, the complaint is devoid of merits and needs to be rejected. Hence the following.

 

::ORDER::

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

 

        Communicate the order to parties.

 

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 28^th July  2022.)

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

 

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:- Haseena Jan D/o Late M.B.Basha sab.

 

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of opponents:

DW-1:- Exparte

DW-2:- Ramesh P. S/o K. Puttaramu

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	Copy of acknowledgement
02	Ex-A-2:-	The property extract card of his land
03	Ex-A-3:-	The legal notice postal envelop
04	Ex-A-4&5 :-	Postal receipts

 

Documents marked on behalf of opponent No.1:

 

Exparte

 

Documents marked on behalf of opponent No.2:

 

 

 

01	Ex-B-1:-	Proceedings of the Government of Karnataka
02	Ex-B-2:-	Kannada version of the scheme of  PMFBY 2017 action plan
03	Ex-B-3:-	Extract of portal “Samrakshane”

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

 

 

 

GM