Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/286/2019

Smt. Lakshmidevi W/o Ramanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri.Ashok.V

28 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:286/2019

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	Smt. Lakshmidevi W/o Ramanna . Neralagunte Village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga Dist ( Rep by Advocate Sri. Ashok.V)
V/S
.….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	The Manager, Universal sampoo general insurance co ltd., 3rd floor, Samrat, 217/A, 3rd Main, Outer Ring road,Kasthurinagar, Bangalore-560043. ( Rep by Advocate Sri. K. Mohan Bhat)

 

:ORDER:

 

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

 

This complaint is filed U/s 12 of CP Act 1986, claiming for awarding, crop pursuance assured at Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental shock pain and suffering and also for Rs.30,000/- per acre on account of financial loss with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:

It is the case of the complainant that, she is an agriculturist of Neralagunte Village of Challakere Taluk. Owing land measuring A.G.2.27 bearing Sy.No.64/1BP4.

2. The complainant is stated to have, grown Groundnut, sunflower, cotton and such other of commercial crops and in the year 2017-18. She is started to have sown Onion by investing Rs.30,000/- per acre for fertilized, seeds & labour charges etc and she is stated to have getting have Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. The complainant is stated to have opened  her SB S/c at PKGB Bank and insured her crops under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and has paid. The premium of Rs.4,003.77/- the same is said to have been sent to OP and OP has agreed to pay of the insured amount in case of destruction of crop due to failure of rainfall and other natural calamities.

4. The complainant has stated that the Government of Karnataka has declared various Taluks as affected by drought, including challakere taluk of complainant on account of drought, the complainant is said to have sustained improper yield leading to the heavy financial loss. In this regard the complainant has stated have contacted  OP to compensate the insured amount. But the same is said to have fallen on deaf ears of the OP. As further stated, as per the policy terms and conditions the OP is liable to pay the insured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh). And the OP is bound to indemnify the loss accrued to complainant and thereby the OP is said to have not discharged duties despite issuance of legal notice, wherefor, the present complaint.

5. The OP has made its appearance through its counsel on service of notice of this complaint. The OP has traversed and the contents of the complaint, specifically stated that on para No.21 “As per the application No. PKGB0010771-220552 of complainant, this opposite party would like to inform to this Hon’ble court that CCE Yield is higher than the therehold yield in the said Nayakanahatti Hobli, Hence there is no loss to the farmer and hence no claim is reflected in the portal”.

 

  6. Based on the rival contentions, this commission has pointed out the following points for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency of service on the part of OP, on account of not settling the claim of complainant?
2. What order?

 

On perusal of pleadings and the evidence of both parties and findings on the above points are as below

Point No. (i)  In the Negative

Point No. (ii) As per the final order

 

7. 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.

 

8. The OP got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.B-1.

 

Ex.B-1 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 Neralagunte 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 far 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 hereby 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:- Smt. Suramma W/o Uppara Hatti Thippaiah.

 

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of opponent:

DW-1:- Rakesh. P. S/o H.T. Prakash

 

 

 

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:

 

01

Ex-B-1:-

Extract of portal “Samrakshane”.

 

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

 

 

 

GM