BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

C.C.No.05/2017

Date of filing: 16/01/2017

Date of disposal: 29/04/2019

P R E S E N T :-

- V/S -

JUDGEMENT

By Smt. Sharada. K. President.

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) directed the OPs to pay compensation of the failure of crops i.e. Soyabin crop of Rs.90,000/- and Maize crop of Rs.23,000/- total Rs.1,13,000 to the complainant till realization and pay Rs.70,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings and any other reliefs etc.,

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

          The complainant is the owner of Agriculture land bearing R.S.No.46 measuring 18 A- 0-G situated of Mudhol village and out of that, he has grown Soyabin crops in 5 Acres and Maize in 1 Acre of his land during the year 2016 and OP.No.1 is insurer of the said crops of the complainant and further the complainant had paid Crop Insurance amount of 4-Acare Soyabin of Rs.1,335.51 and Maize Rs.462.45 total Rs.1,797.96 to the OP.No.1 Insurance Company’s A/c No.049901601051524 from complainant’s A/c No.08372200054009 on dtd: 04.08.2016 through OP.No.2 Syndicate Bank, Branch Mudhol. 

It is further contended that, the failure of crops, the complainant has asked the OPs 2-3 times to pay the compensation of Rs.1,13,000/- to the complainant towards OP.No.1 Insurance Company, due to failure of Soyabin and Maize, but OP.No.1 has not paid the said amount to the complainant, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s.

Finally, the complainant had got issued the legal notice through his advocate on dtd: 13.09.2016, calling upon to the OP.No.1 to make payments and the said notice has been also send to the Government of India, after serving the notice the OP.No.1 has called the complainant and stating that, the insurance company has collected all the documents, but the OP.No.1 has not taken any action till today, these attitude and acts of the OP.No.1 is clearly shows that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.No.1. Hence, the complainant has constrained to file this complaint.  

3.      The Forum registered a case and issued notice to the Ops. After service of the notices, the OP.No.1 & 2 have appeared through their counsel and OP.No.1 has filed his written version and OP.No.2 has filed memo and stating that, in complaint para No.2 the complainant has admitted that, the OP.No.2 is a formal party and he has not claim against this OP.No.2. Hence, on these grounds, the OP.No.2 has not filed any objection or affidavit to the instant case.

The OP.No.1 has denied all the allegation made out in the complaint are all false, baseless, frivolous and vexations and complaint filed by the complainant in the present form is not maintainable in the eyes of law and hence same deserves to be dismissed in limine and further denied that, the OP.No.1 is insurer of the said crops of Soyabin in 5 Acre and Maize in 1 Acre and it is false to say that, the OP.No.1 had collected the premium amount of Rs.1,704/- paid by the complainant on 01.07.2016 for Soyabin crop and Rs.100.96 paid on 04.08.2016 for Maize crop and further denied that, the said amount was credited to the Account of OP.No.1’s A/c No.049901601051524 from complainant’s A/c No.08372200054009 from OP.No.2 bank and further the complainant has not furnished correct, sufficient and proper particulars to trace the said details in the system of the OP.No.2 and there is no such person named Ashok Marutirao Karpe or mentioned complainant in this case and it is not possible to confirm the same and he has not entitled for total amount of crop compensation of Rs.1,13,000/- by way of failure of crop of the complainant.

          It is false to say that, the complainant has asked the OP 2-3 times to pay the crop compensation amount due to failure of crops and by sending Advocate notice on dtd: 13.09.2016 to the OP.No.1 and further the OP.No.1 has not issued any policy to the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.No.1. Hence, OP.No.1 prayed that, the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs.  

4.      The complainant has filed his chief affidavit along with documents which are marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 in support of his case. The documents are as follows;

On the other hand OP.No.1 has filed his affidavit on behalf of his case and he has not produced any documents and OP.No.2 has filed memo and produced 1 document which is marked as Ex.R-1 are as follows;

5.      On the basis of above said pleadings, Written Arguments of complainant, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows;

Our Answer to the above points are:-

Point No.1 – In the Negative.

Point No.2 - As per the final order for the following:

R E A S O N S

 6.  POINT NO.1:  The complainant filed this complaint against the OP’s claiming Crop Insurance amount and further the complainant had insured his crops like Soyabean and Maize during the year 2016, Complainant submits that, he is having a land in Survey No.45, 18 A- 0-G and further in this complaint, the complainant has sowed 5 Acres of Soyabean Crop and in 1 Acre he had cultivated Maize. For these crops, the complainant had insured with OP.No.1 and paid an insurance amount of Rs.1,797.96/- on dtd: 04.08.2016 to the OP.No.1 through OP No.2 bank, which is marked as Ex.P-1.

Further complainant submits that, the Soyabean Crop has been spoiled, hence complainant made a claim with the OP-Insurance company and issued the notice to OP.No.1 till the date of filing of this complaint, which is marked as
Ex.P-2, but the OP.No.1-Insurance Company did not paid the insurance claim amount to the complainant. In order to prove the said contention the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence and peace of document to show that, the Soyabean Crop was spoiled and not cultivated properly and even, the complainant had not filed any report to show that, the above said crop had not given proper yielding. Hence, in one way he can say that, the complainant had not made out his case or through the case that, the OP.No.1 made deficiency in service.

On the other hand the OP.No.1 submits that, all the allegation made by the complainant is false and he has not received the premium amount from the complainant and complainant is not the Consumer of the OP’s and further there is no any documents to show that, the complainant is a Customer of the OP.No.1. For that proposition, the OP.No.1 has not produced any iota of evidence nor produced any document and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against this OP.No.1 and further the OP No.2 filed objection and contending that, he is the formal party in the proceedings and there is no claim against the OP.No.2 and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

Off-course, the complainant has not claimed any amount from the OP.No.2, it is the bounded duty of the OP No.2 to say that, the amount had been paid to the OP.No.1-Insurance Company or not, OP.No.2 is a mediator between the complainant and OP.No.1. Since, complainant has paid the insurance amount to the OP.No.1 through OP No.2 Bank, such being the fact that, the OP.No.2 has to produce the document to show that, the complainant had insured their crops with OP.No.1-Insurance Company. Simply staying mum cannot be acceptable by this Forum, when the OP.No.1 says that, he has not received the premium amount to the complainant and complainant has not the Customer to the OP.No.1, the OP No.2’s duty to Act as a bridge and clear the doughty’s.

On-perusing the documents, considering the evidence and submission of the Counsels, the complainant filed a document in support of this case i.e. payment receipt made to the OP.No.2 as a premium for Soyabean and Maize for the session of Kharif in the year 2016-17 and the record of right (RTC) is also produced, but here there is no any record to show that, the Soyabean Crop was spoiled and not cultivated properly even, the complainant had not filed any report to show that, the said crop had not given proper yielding.

Under such circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove the alleged in the complaint regarding the above said Soyabean Crop was spoiled. Therefore, looking from any angle, the complainant can’t claim compensation from OP.No.1 and there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.No.1. Therefore, in our considered opinion that, the contention of the complainant cannot be believable and it has no force and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.No.1. Accordingly, we answer this Point in the Negative. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is here by dismissed. No order as to costs. 
2. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

            (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this  29^th day of April, 2019).