Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/323/2019

Smt. G. Kavitha W/o P. Dyamanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co., Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao

10 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:323/2019

DATED: 10^th AUGUST 2022

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

 

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

                    

……COMPLAINANT/S	Smt. G. Kavitha W/o P. Dyamanna, Aged about 38 years, Agriculturist, Guddadaneralakere Village, Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, Karnataka State.                 (Rep by Advocate Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao)
V/S
.….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	1 . The Regional Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co., Ltd, 3rd Floor J.P. & Devi Jambugeshwar Orchade, No.69, Millar Road, Bangalore 560 052. (Rep by Advocate Sri.B.M. Ravichandra)     2 . The Branch Manager, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, Guddadaneralakere Village, Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District. Karnataka State                    (OP No.2 Dismissed) (Rep by Advocate Sri.A.M. Rudramuni)   3 . Joint Director of Horticulture (Vegetabhles) Horticulture Department, Director of Horticulture, Lal Bhag, Bengaluru-560004. (Rep by Advocate D.G.P)

 

:ORDER:

 

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

 

       The present complaint is filed U/s 12 of CP Act 1986, Claiming for direction to OPs to settle claim for the insured amount of Rs.1,65,927/- for the loss of crops. And a direction to OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- with 12% interest p.a. for alleged deficiency of service, dereliction of duties and unfair trade practice. In addition the complainant has sought for Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earning, mental agony & costs of proceedings.

 

BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:

 

1. The complainant claims to be an agriculturist owning land, having Sy.No.2/2 measuring 2.31 acre at Guddadaneralakere Village of Mathadu Hobli in Chitradurga dist. She claims to be reaping the crops of Pomegranate, Coconut, Ragi and Maize, regularly in her land.

 

And during 2017-18 she is stated to have borrowed crop loan by paying (premium for insurance) Rs.6,314.00/- under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY). And in that year, due to failure of rainfall she lost her crop (yield). And the OPs had insured her crops for a sum of Rs.1,26,281.81/- under “Samrakshane” crop insurance scheme.

 

        2. She further asserts that, she had frequented to the office of OPs several times and had letter correspondence, which went
unattended by OPs, wherefor this complaint.

 

        3. On service of notice of complaint, the OP No.1 has made its appearance through its counsel and filed detailed, version, traversing all the contents of complaint, including the denial of any privity of contract between itself and the complainant.

 

        4. The OP No. 1 its para-7 of version has stated, that, “the opponent No.1 insurance company has sent a mail on 21/06/2017 to Joint Director of Horticulture, Vegetables calling upon him to clarify the matter since on 21/06/2017 the joint director of Horticulture department, Bengaluru has sent a mail to the opponent No.2 insurance company officer regarding subject: claim settlement of RWBCIS 2016-17 stating that, “claim settlement of R-WBCIS 2016-17 and a excel sheet of 158 cases were rain gauge mapping are found wrong because of identification, hence they are requested to  withhold the settlement for those particulars of 158 cases and if claim settlement had already done for any of 158 cases, please revert back such particular, the same has been given instruction by Joint Director of Horticulture Department. Hence, such being the instruction given by the Horticulture Department, OP No.1 insurance Company has no obligation to settle the claim. Hence, OP No.1 is hereby prays for dismissal of the case against this OP No.1company”.

        For the above reason the OP No.1 has sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

        5. The OP No.2 (now deleted by order on Memo filed by the advocate for complaint on  07/08/2019, and consequent order on 07/08/2019) though filed its  version, is of no consequence, as complaint is not having any claim against OP No.2.  Subsequently OP No.3 is added by virtue of IA No.1 u/o 1, R 10 (2) CPC.

 

        6. Subsequently, it is observed, the OP No.3 did not file its written version, and is taken to be nil by order dated 05/11/2019. On its turn, the stage was set for recording of evidence, and complainant got herself examined as PW-1 on 20/07/2019 and documents at Ex.A-1 to A-5 got marked and closes her side. Later OP No.1 has filed its chief examination, and no documents are marked, and subsequently it was closed on 27/12/2019.

 

        7. Subsequently advocate for complainant has filed, written arguments on 27/12/2019. Though written arguments of OP No.1 is shown to have filed its written arguments but there is no endorsement to that effect in the order sheet. 

        8. Heard, and perused the documents placed on record by both side and the following point arise for our consideration viz.

1. Whether the complainant proves that, she is the consumer of OPs?  
2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
3. What order?

 

9. The findings of this commission on the & above points for consideration is as below.

 

Point No.1: In the affirmative

Point No.2: In the affirmative

Point No.3: As per the final order for the following.

 

REASONS:

For the convenience of consideration, Point No.1 and 2 are taken together and are analysed.

        10. As stated above in the facts though the OP No.1 has denied the initial relationship of complainant with the OP No.1, later in para No.7 of its version tacitly admitted the privity of contract between complainant and OP No.1. It’s equally important to note that, the subsequent added party i.e. OP No.3, has chosen not to file its version, which is evident from the order sheet dated 05/11/2019. As the complainant has given up her rights as against the OP No.2 the claim is dismissed against OP No.2. In view of the same, we have no hesitation to answer Point No.1 in affirmative. Anyhow, in subsequent stages matter was being adjourned for settlement and on 23/07/2021 a memo came to be filed by the Advocate for OP No.3, stating that, complainant’s claim is settled and obtained D.D. from bank.  but there is no evidence to that effect.

 

        11. As stated above, the memo dated 23/07/2021 and chief examination of DW-1, at para No.6 it makes it clear that, it is only the OP No.3 who has to settle the claim. Interestingly, the OP No.3 has not lead any evidence in support of memo dated 23/07/2021 nor marked any documents to substantiate it.

 

        12. Though the memo noted above is annexed with, copy of “Samrakshane” portal and disbursement of insured amount, there is no mention of the name of the complainant, in those documents.

 

        13. But, as stated above, the copy of the “Samrakshane” portal makes a mention to the Sy.No.116/2 of the complainant and endorsers that, claim is approved.

 

        14. This itself is sufficient to hold that, the OPs have committed deficiency of service. On the contrary, the natural inference that could be drawn against the OP No.3 is that, the OP No.3 is guilty of blatant dereliction of duty in settling the claim of poor lady who has frequented from pillars to post.  

 

        15. We are conscious of the fact that, the bureaucrat class are oblivious of their discharge of duties and common man is fed up of red-tapism. These facts, narrated above are to be heavily dealt with, and force us to answer Point No.2 in the affirmative.

 

        For the detailed reasons noted above, we proceed to pass the following order.

 

 

::ORDER::

 

        The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby allowed in part.

The OP No.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the insured amount of Rs.1,65,927/-.

 

1. The OP No.1 and 3 shall pay Rs.25,000/- towards, their deficiency of service.
2. The OP No.1 and 3 shall also pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and cost of proceedings.

 

The OP No.1 and 3 shall be liable to pay the above amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, and failure to which, the aggregate amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of presentation of this complaint till its realization.

 

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 02^nd August 2022.)

 

 

     LADY MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1:- Smt. G. Kavitha W/o P. Dyamanna

 

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of Opponent No.1:

 

DW-1:- Sri. Krishna Sheernalli S/o Sathyanarayan Bhat

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	Adhar Card copy
02	Ex-A-2:-	Insurance and Proposer Data copy
03	Ex-A-3:-	RTC Form  Survey No.116
04	Ex-A-4:-	Notice dated 19/01/2019
05	Ex-A-5:-	Postal Window receipt & Acknowledgements

 

Documents marked on behalf of opponent No.1 & 3 :

Nil

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

GM