Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1014/2019

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tippeshappa - Opp.Party(s)

Prashanth.T.Pandit

16 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

 

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal Nos. 1012/2019 to 1019/2019

 

Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Having office at: 1st floor, Brigade Magnum, Amruthalli Village, Bengaluru-560092 Rep. by its Manager (By Sri. Prashant T. Pandit)   V/s	….Appellant
Appeal No.1012/2019 1.  H.S.Kumara swamy      S/o. H.S.Sambalingappa,      Aged about 45 years,      R/a Mathod village,      Mathod Hobli, Hosadurga Tq.,      Chitradurga Dist. 2.  The Branch Manager      Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank,      Mathod Hobli, Hosadurga Tq.,      Chitradurga Dist. 3.  Deputy Commissioner of Horticulture      Horticulture Department,      Chitradurga   Respondent Nos. 2 & 3  are common in Appeal Nos.1012 to 1018/2019   (R1 by Sri. HBS R2 by Sri. Prasanna Kumar)	..…Respondents
Appeal No.1013/2019 1.  Natesh      S/o. Parappa,      R/a B.C.Palya, Mathod Hobli,      Hosadurga Tq., Chitradurga Dist.	..…Respondents
Appeal No.1014/2019 1.  Tippeshappa      S/o. Siddalingappa,      R/a  Hothurugondanahalli,      Mathod Hobli, Hosadurga Tq.,      Chitradurga Dist.	..…Respondents
Appeal No.1015/2019 1.  Mudlappa      S/o. Rajappa,      R/a Hothugondanahalli,      Mathod Hobli, Hosadurga Tq.,      Chitradurga Dist.	..…Respondents
Appeal No.1016/2019 1.  H.S.Omkarmurthy      S/o. H.S.Sambalingappa,      R/a Jiraythu,      Mathod Hobli, Hosadurga Tq.,      Chitradurga Dist.	..…Respondents
Appeal No.1017/2019 1.  B.Siddhramappa      S/o. G.Basappa,      R/a Jiraythu,      Mathod Hobli, Hosadurga Tq.,      Chitradurga Dist.	..…Respondents
Appeal No.1018/2019 1.  Jayanna      S/o. Thimanna      R/a Jiraythu,      Mathod Hobli, Hosadurga Tq.,      Chitradurga Dist.	..…Respondents
Appeal No.1019/2019 1.  Raghuramaiah      S/o. R.Eshwarappa,      R/a Mathod village,      Mathod Hobli, Hosadurga Tq.,      Chitradurga Dist. 2.  The Branch Manager      Canara Bank, Hosadurga branch,      Hosadurga Tq.,  Chitradurga Dist. 3.  Deputy Commissioner of Horticulture      Horticulture Department,      Chitradurga	..…Respondents

 

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

OP No. 1 preferred this appeal against order dated 12.04.2019 in C.C.No.131/2018, C.C.Nos.153 to 158/2018 and 165/2018 passed by District Commission, Chitradurga which directed them to pay compensation to the complainants towards loss of crop due to shortage of rainfall and submits that complainants had filed complaints before District Commission alleging deficiency in service in not settling the claim towards loss of crop during 2016-17 and alleged that premium was paid under PMFBY scheme.  The complainants suffered loss of Pomegranate crop due to failure of rainfall and claimed amount under PMBFY scheme.  The OPs refused to settle the claim as the OP No.2 i.e., R2 who is a nodal agency/ bank had not submitted the proposal of complainant on or before 08.12.2016.  Due to non-supply of any details with respect to insurance crop of the complainants, by the Respondent No.2, this appellant not able to consider the claim.  Hence, submitted no deficiency in service.

2. After trial the District Commission allowed the complaints and directed this appellant to pay amount as stated in the impugned order along with compensation and litigation expenses.  Further Learned Advocate for appellant vehemently argued that complainants have directly approached this appellant for coverage of the crops as contemplated under PMFBY scheme.  It is only through respondent No.2 bank the complainants have filed application for coverage of their risk whereas the second respondent after receipt of the premiums having submitted proposal form and not submitted any materials to show that which type of crop grown by complainants on or before 15.08.2016 and extended date.  Due to non-receipt of any premium amount and proposal, this appellant not able to pay any compensation to the loss suffered by the complainants, but, District Commission without considering the said submission had directed this appellant/ OP to pay the amount.  Hence, prays to set aside the order passed as there is no deficiency in service.
3. Heard.  On perusal of the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal we noticed here that the complainants are agriculturists who are having lands and in the said lands they are growing Pomegranate.  During the year 2016-17, complainants obtained insurance policy under PMBFY scheme by paying premiums and the said proposals were sent to OP No.1.  In turn the OP No.2 in their version have contended that as per the instructions given by the Central Government, within the stipulated time paid crop insurance premium amount to OP No.1 and followed all necessary procedures with respect to fulfilling of crop insurance.  In turn the OP No.1 accepted the said premium and proposals.  Whereas we noticed that OP No.1 in their version has contended that OP No.2 has not sent any proposal form.  The District Commission after receiving evidence from both complainants and OPs have come to the conclusion that OP No.1 has received proposal and premium towards risk coverage and they are under the obligation to pay compensation when there is loss of crop due to shortage of rainfall and also dismissed the complaint against OP No.2 who is nodal agency / bank.
4. The arguments submitted by Learned Advocate for appellant are not acceptable.  OP No.2 in these complaints has produced documents to show that premium amount was sent to OP No.1 insurance company/ appellant.  It is also noticed that as per the statement of accounts of complainants premium amount was deducted.  Such being the case the defense that they have not received any proposal form / premium are not acceptable.  The scheme clearly provides that the insurance company/appellant is liable to pay compensation to the complainants when there is loss due to lack of rainfall.  The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law.  We do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the District Commission.  There is no merit in the appeal.  Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
5. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for disbursement to complainants.

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

CV*