Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/60/2021

Sri.T.Govindappa s/o late Kougi Thimmaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Universal sampo general insurance co ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.C.J.Lakshminarasimha

14 Sep 2021

ORDER

By Sri. G. SREEPATHI, MEMBER.

        -: ORDERS ON ADMISSIBILITY OF COMPLAINT:-

          The complainant has filed this complaint against Op and prays before this Commission to direct Op to pay the amount of insurance assured Rs. 2,10,748=50, Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental shock, agony, pain and deep sorrow, Rs. 30,000/- per acre towards great financial loss incurred by the complainant to get good Crops along with interest at the rate of 18%  p.a. and to grant such other relief.

The Facts of the complaint are:

        The complainant is a permanent resident of address mentioned as above and doing agriculture. He is having agricultural lands jointly in their family members bearing Sy No. 54/2 and 74/4, measuring 5 acres 25 guntas and 5 acres 38 guntas respectively. The complainant use to grow commercial crops such as sun flower, Ragi, Cotton, Ground nut seeds in the said land by investing huge amount of Rs. 50,000/- per acre towards purchase of seeds, fertilizers, Chemicals and Labour Charges, Cultivation to grow more crops and to get more income from the above said crops and getting more than Rs. 6,00,000/- from these crops. The complainant has paid insurance premium Under Pradhana Mantri Fasal Bheema Yojane, Rs. 2,048.40 and Rs. 2,166=57 in total Rs. 4,214=97 by way of cash on 31/07/2017. It is agreed by the Op to pay the insured amount in case crop is destroyed due to failure of rainfall or natural calamities and other reasons.

        On observation of facts of the complaint, it is very clear that the complainant has availed crop insurance for the period 2017-2018. Only on issue of legal notice dated 01/02/2021 and on service of the same by the Op, have considered cause of action for filing of this  complaint. Whereas the same is not within limitation. Period. There is a delay in filing of the complaint. On observing Citations of Hon’ble National Commission reported in CPR – 2017, page No. 284. It is clearly stated that by giving subsequent notices, limitation cannot be extended.

        As per Section 69 of Consumer Protection act 2019, Act 35 of 2019, the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arise. As per this there is a delay in filing of the said complaint. Hence the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission on limitation and accordingly we proceed to pass the following:

                                        ORDER

        The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission on limitation and the same is hereby rejected.

 

 

Lady Member                 Member                        President