Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/35/2022

Sri.Pachappa S/o Ramappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Universal Sompo General Insurance co.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Smt.T.Radha

15 Jun 2023

ORDER

                                                                                     

COMPLAINT FILED ON 25/03/2022

                                  DISPOSED ON: 15/06/2023

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:35/2022

DATED:15^th June 2023

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

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

Sri. H.JANARDHAN, B.A.L., LL.B., MEMBER       

 

                    

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri Pachhappa S/o Ramappa, Aged about 45 Years, R/o Doddabeeranahalli Village, Chitradurga District. (Rep by Advocate Smt. T. Radha)
V/S
.….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	The Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kasturi Nagar, (Rep by  Sri K. Mohan Bhat, Advocate)

:JUDGEMENT:

 

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

 

The complainant filed a complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opponent to direct the pay insurance premium assured amount of Rs.2,09,888=80/- and also Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental shock, agony, pain and deep sorrow and Rs.30,000/- per acre towards great financial loss incurred by the  complainant to get the good crops along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and grant such other relief as the Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case as prayed for in the interest of justice by allowing the complaint.

 

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

The complainant submits that, the having owned agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 65/1, totally measuring
11-Acre, 11-Guntas above said lands situated at DoddabeeranahalliVillage, ParashurampuraHobli, ChallakereTaluk and the complainant use to grow commercial crops such as Sunflower, Ragi, Cotton, Groundnut etc. In the year 2020-2021 the complainant has sown the Groundnut seeds in the above said land and invested huge amount of Rs.50,000/- per acre towards the purchase of Sunflower, Ground nut, Cotton seeds, Fertilizers, Chemical and labour charges, cultivation to grow more crops and to get more come from the above said crops and complainant succeed in getting good crops and complainant getting more than Rs.11,00,000/-from these crops.

 

3. Complainant has paid Insurance premium amount Under Pradhan MantriFasalBhimaYojane for a sum of Rs.2,09,888=80/- and premium of Rs.4,197=78/- on 30/06/2020 and the same was send to the opponent. The opponent has agreed to pay the insured amount in case crops is destroyed due to rainfall OR natural calamities and other reasons. The concerned Authorities have declared that, various District's, inKarnataka are fallen under draught including the area of Challakere, Taluk in ChitradurgaDistrict. Due to draught the complainant has also suffered heavy loss due to improper yielding of crops in his lands. In this regard the complainant contacted and demanded to pay the insurance amount but, the opponent is postponing the same in or other pretext. As per the policy conditions the opponent is liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant.

 

4. The complainant further submits that, the complainant orally requested and demanded the opponents on Several times to pay admissible amount of compensation, due to non Payment of the insurance admissible amount and give necessary particulars about the non-payment of the sum assured, inspite of the same the opponent neither pay the assured amount to the complainant nor give proper reply to his well within time.

 

5. That the complainant have bound to indemnify the failure of crops due to natural calamities and to pay the benefit claims to the complainant without delay even matter immediately impact with them, the opponent have never discharged his deliberate service by the deficiency of service of the opponent, the complainant sustained financial loss and without reasonable grounds, the opponent have refused the claim. The complainant has demanded and requested the opponent to settle the claim and submitted the application, that the opponent without any valid, confide reasonable grounds, to approach the lead Bank, and submitted the application to settle the claim but the opponent neglect to comply the request, the opponent have deliberately fails to discharge their desired service. Hence this complaint.

 

6. After registered the complaint, notice issued by this Hon’ble Commission was served to the opponents. OP appearedthrough its counsel. Wherefore, opponent have filed their version. According to the version, 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 of Rs.4,197=78/-to cover sun Ground Nut (R.F.) crop in bearing Sy.No. 65/1, totally measuring 11-Acre, 11-Guntasland in Doddabeeranahalli Village, Doddachellur Gram Panchayat,-ParashurampuraHobli, ChallakereTaluk a sum of Rs.2,09,888=80/- through  Saving Account, under a ACK. No.78370 to cover Ground Nut (R.F.) crop, State Government in Samrakshne portal 2021 mentioned Doddabeeranahalli Village, Doddachellur Gram Panchayath, ChallakereTaluk, Ground Nut ( RF ) crop Threshold Yield per Ha is 521.84 and CCE Actual yield per Ha is 885.881 and shortfall is 69.761038, As per the data given by the Government, there was no losing of crops in the said Doddachellur Gram Panchayat in year 2020-21. As per the Application of complainant No.78370 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 Samrakshane Portal,based on the above date provided to us, we are not liable to pay compensation.

7. OP 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.

8. The Hon’ble commission has given many opportunities to Witness examine on behalf of Complainant side, but the complainant has failed, documents werenot marked complainant side and the opponent has examined as DW-1 and the documents were marked as Ex B-1, Closed the evidence on opponent side.The Hon’ble commission given an opportunity to both the parties for oral arguments. But there is no representation from complainant and his counsel, hence the heard the oral arguments of OP side.

 

9. 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?

 

10. 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

:REASONS:

11. Point No. 1 & 2:There is no dispute that the complainant being the owner and insured his Groundnut crops in bearing Sy.No. 65/1, totally measuring 11-Acre, 11-Guntas above said lands situated at DoddabeeranahalliVillage, ParashurampuraHobli, ChallakereTaluk. Thecomplainant use to grow commercial crops such as Sunflower, Ragi, Cotton, Groundnut etc. During the year 2020-2021, the complainant has sown Groundnut seeds on the aforesaid land. And for sunflower, groundnut, cotton seeds, fertilizers, chemical and labor costs, per acre for purchase of cultivation Rs. 50,000/- invested a huge amount. And they have insured their crops under Pradhan MantriFasalBhimaYojane (PMFBY). On 30/06/2020 he has paidRs.4,197=78/- premium amount for sum insured amount of Rs.2,09,888=80. Due to loss of crop, complainant approached OPs to get compensation amount. But the OPs are neglecting to follow the request.

12. The complainant produced documents but failure to lead the evidence of complainant.Hence, documents were not marked complainant side. The opponent examined as DW-1 and got marked document Ex.B-1 is Copy of PMFBY Shortfall percentage report.

13. Version filed by the opponent it is submitted that thepetitioner had paid premium of Rs.4,197=78/-to cover sun Ground Nut (R.F.) crop in Sy.No. 65/1, totally measuring 11-Acre, 11-Guntas land in Doddabeeranahalli Village, Doddachellur Gram Panchayat,-ParashurampuraHobli, ChallakereTaluk a sum of Rs.2,09,888=80/- through  Saving Account, under a ACK. No.78370. As per the data given by the Government, there was no losing of crops in the said Doddachellur Gram Panchayat in year 2020-21. Threshold Yield per Ha is 521.84 and CCE Actual yield per Ha is 885.881 and shortfall is 69.761038, 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 Samrakshane Portal,based on the above date provided to us, we are not liable to pay compensation.

14. The crux of the matter in the present case is whether the complainant has been able to prove in complaint and whether the complainant has made an effort to convince us to declare the village drought-prone by the appropriate authorities? But the complainant has not submitted any document that the village has been declared as a drought affected village by the appropriate authorities. In view of the facts that no record is available in the complaint.

15. As per the available citationof the 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”.

 

16. In view of the authority referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that, we perused all the documents produced by both the parties. The complainant has failed to prove declare the village drought-prone by the appropriate authorities. The complaint is devoid of merits and needs to be rejected. Hence, the Point No.1 and 2 is answered in the Negative.

17. Point No.3:  Hence, in the light of above discussion we proceed to pass the following.

 

::ORDER::

       The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 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 on15^th June 2023.)

 

 

 

        Sd/-                               Sd/-                            Sd/-

LADY MEMBER       MEMBER                PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

Nil

 

Witness examined on behalf of opponent:

DW-1:Sri P. Rakesh S/o Prakash, Working as Dist. Co-ordinator, M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Ltd., by way of affidavit of evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of opponent:

 

01

Annexure B-1:-

Copy of PMFBY Shortfall percentage report

 

 

           Sd/-                           Sd/-                            Sd/-

LADY MEMBER       MEMBER                PRESIDENT

 

 

**GM