Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/245/2018

Sri Rajapa, S/o Channappa, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Vijaya Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Thippeswamy.N

27 Aug 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:03/12/2019

DISPOSED      ON:27/08/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:245/2018

 

DATED: 27^th AUGUST 2019

PRESENT :-     SMT. C.M. CHANCHALA         : PRESIDENT                  B.A.L., LL.B.,

                        SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.K.N                   :     MEMBER

                             M.Com., LL.B.,

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri. Rajappa S/o Channappa, Aged about 48 years, Agriculturist, Madanayakanhalli, Chitradurga Taluk and District. (Rep by Sri.Thippeswamy N. Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	1. The Manager, Vijaya Bank, Chitradurga Branch, J.C.R. Road, Beside Umapathi Choultry, Chitradurga.   (Rep by OP.1 Sri. K.A. Nagaraja Reddy, Advocate for OP.1 Advocate   2. The Universal Shampo General Insuance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 3rd Floor, K.V.V. Smart, 217/A, 3rd Main Road, Outer Ring road, Kasturi Nagara, Bengaluru-43.   (Rep by OP.2 by Sri. K. Mohan Bhata, Advocate for OP.2 Advocate)

ORDER

SMT. C.M. CHANCHALA          :      PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs for issued direction to pay the insurance amount of Rs. 99,625/- with interest and Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and loss of time and such other reliefs.

2. The complainant is the absolute owner of the land bearing SY. No. 17/4 measuring 4.37 guntas situated at Madanayakanahalli Village. The complainant has yielding Maize crop. On 20/07/2017 the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,992/- as a premium amount through OP.1 to the OP.2. Pradhan Manthri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) is implemented in the country Under the Orders of Government with an objectives of, to provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in the event of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities, pests and diseases. Accordingly maize crop of the complainant was failed due to rain fed and losing of crops in the said village in year 2017. As per the application of complainant 629715. Due to loss of the maize crop the complainant approached the OP.2 for claiming compensation amount. But the OP.2 have repudiated the same and stating that there no crop loss of the former in the said village. Hence OP.2 have repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant have issued the legal notice to the OP.1 and 2. After receiving of the notice they have not settled the claim. Hence pray for allow the complaint.

3. After issue of notice to the OPs one Sri. K.A. Nagaraj, filed Vakalath for OP.1 and Sri K.M. Mohan Bhatt, filed Vakalath on behalf of OP.2. According to the version filed by the Op.1 it is true that the complainant is having the land bearing Sy.No. 17/4 measuring 4.37 guntas in Madanayakanahally village. And further true that he was having the S.B. account with the OP.1. It is true he was obtained insurance premium   for Maize crop and paid a sum of Rs. 1992/- has a premium amount to the OP.2 through OP.1. Accordingly the Op1 have issued the endorsement on 23/07/2017. The officer of the Agricultural Department have inspected the spot and asses the loss of Maize crop and submitted the report to the concerned authority. The Op.2 is held responsible for settled the claim of the complainant. Hence pray for dismissal the complaint against OP.1.

4. According to the version filed by the Op.2 that the complainant case is not maintainable either in law or facts since there in deficiency of service on the part of the OP.2. The allegation stated in para-2 to 5 are denied as false. The premium of RS. 1992/- to cover S.N.17 Measuring 4A 37G a sum of Rs. 99,625/- through saving account under a ACK No. CSC001-629715 to cover Maize crop. State Government in Samrakshne Portal 2017 mentioned Chitradurga District, Madanayakanahally grama Panchaya Maize (Makka) rain fed. Therehold yield is 2014-56 and CCE Actual yield is 3288.275 and shortfall is-0-63225. As per the date given by the Government, there is no losing of crops in the said village in year 2017. As per the application of complainant 629715 this OP would like to inform to this Hon’ble Court that the CCE Yield is higher than the threshold yield. Hence there is no crop loss of the farmer and hence no claim is reflected in the Portal. PMFBY is being implemented in the country under the orders of Government with an objectives to provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in the event of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities, pests and diseases. The para-5 to 9 of the complaint is denied has false and pray for dismissal of the complaint against this OP.2.

5.      Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-4 were got marked and closed his side.  

 

6.      Arguments heard.

7.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP.2  have not deposited the insured amount to the complainant account and committed deficiency of service to the complainant and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

         8.       Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                   Point No.1:-Partly in Affirmative. 

                   Point No.2:- As per final order.

 

REASONS

 

9.      Point No.1:- There is no dispute between both parties that, the complainant is the absolute owner of land bearing SY. No. 17/4 measuring 4.37 guntas situated at Madanayakanahalli Village, Chitradurga taluk and District. The complainant was sowed the Maize crop during the year 2017 Khariff season in the said land.  On 20/07/2017 the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,992/- as a premium amount through OP.1 to the OP.2 under Pradhan Manthri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) as implemented in the country Under the Orders of Government with an objectives of, to provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in the event of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities, pests and diseases. Accordingly, maize crop of the complainant was failed due to shortfall of rain and sustained loss of crops in the said village in the year 2017.  Due to loss of the maize crop, the complainant has approached the OP.2 claiming compensation amount.  But the OP.2 has repudiated the same stating that there no crop loss of the former in the said village due to shortfall of rain, therefore, the OP.2 has repudiated the claim of the complainant.

 

10. According to the version filed by the OP No.2, it is admitted that complainant is having the land bearing Sy.No. 17/4 measuring 4-37 guntas in Madanayakanahalli village.  Further it is admitted that, he was having the S.B. A/c with the OP No.1 and the OP No.2 has received the insurance premium amount for Maize crop for a sum of Rs. 1,992/- through OP No.1. Accordingly the OP No.1 has issued the endorsement on 23/07/2017 for having received the premium amount. The officer of the Agricultural Department has inspected the spot and asses the loss of Maize crop and submitted the report to the concerned authority. The OP No.2 has received the premium amount of Rs. 1,992/- to cover Sy.No.17 measuring 4-A 37-G for a sum assured amount of Rs. 99,625/- through S.B. A/c by CSC001-629715 for Maize crop. The State Government in Samrakshne Portal 2017 mentioned the Madanayakanahalli Grama Panchayath in Chitradurga Taluk and District under rain fed crop failed during the Khariff-2017 season. Threshold yield is 2014.56 and CCE Actual yield is 3288.275 and shortfall is-0-63225.  As per the date given by the Government, there is no losing of crops in the said village in year 2017. As per the application of complainant 629715, this OP would like to inform to this Forum that the CCE Yield is higher than the threshold yield. Hence there is no crop loss of the farmer and hence no claim is reflected in the Portal.   

11. After filing of the complaint, the OP No.2 has deposited an amount of Rs.24,916/- to the complainant’s account under the Scheme.  The complainant has filed the memo with regard to the amount deposited by the OP/insurance Company as per the assessment made by the Government authority towards the loss sustained by the farmers, the insurance company has deposited the same, which is sustainable.  But, the OP/insurance company has deposited the amount after filing of this complaint, which is a deficiency of service on the part of OP in depositing the insurance amount under crop insurance.  Therefore, this Forum comes to the conclusion that, the OP/insurance company has to pay the interest on the amount paid by it and also towards the mental agony and cost of this proceedings.  Hence, the OP No.2 has committed deficiency of service and accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.           

            12.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The Complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

It is ordered that the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a.  on the amount which was already paid to the complainant i.e., on Rs.24,916/- from the date of complaint till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. 

It is further ordered that, the complaint against OP.1 is dismissed.

Further that the Op.2 is hereby directed to comply the above said order within 30 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 27/08/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1: Sri. Ramesh.P, Senior Executive of OP No.2 by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-2: Sri. Amaresh.P, Manager of OP No.1 by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Acknowledgement by OP No.2 dated 23.07.2017
02	Ex-A-2:-	Bank Pass Book Xerox
03	Ex-A-3:-	Requisition dated 24.09.2018
04	Ex-A-4:-	Letter dated 03.10.20148 issued by lead Bank

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

-Nil-

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Kms**