Karnataka

Kolar

CC/7/2019

Naremma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.D.V.Laxmi Narayana

31 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 31^st DAY OF JULY 2019

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

 

C.C.NO.06 OF 2019

Sri. Venkataswamy,

S/o. Late Gurappa,

Aged About 71 Years,

Poovandahalli Village,

Kamadenahalli Post,

Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk.                                   ….  Complainant.

(Rep. by Sri. D.V. Laxmi Narayana, Advocate)

 

C.C.NO.07 OF 2019

Smt. Naremma,

W/o. Venkataswamy,

Aged About 67 Years,

Yalavara Village,

Kamadenahalli Post,

Kolar Taluk & District.                                        ….  Complainant.

(Rep. by Sri. D.V. Laxmi Narayana, Advocate)

 

C.C.NO.08 OF 2019

Sri. Krishnappa,

S/o. Ramappa,

Aged About 71 Years,

Yalavara Village,

Kamadenahalli Post,

Kolar Taluk & District.                                                ….  Complainant.

(Rep. by Sri. D.V. Laxmi Narayana, Advocate)

 

C.C.NO.09 OF 2019

Sri. Venkataramappa,

S/o. Late Narayanappa,

Aged About 70 Years,

Yalavara Village,

Kamadenahalli Post,

Kolar Taluk & District.                                          ….  Complainant.

(Rep. by Sri. D.V. Laxmi Narayana, Advocate)

- V/s -

1) M/s. Universal Sompo General Insurance

Company, No.217/A, 3^rd Floor,

K.V.V. Samrat, Kasturinagara,

Bangalore-43.

(Rep. by Sri. B. Kumar, Advocate)                       ….  Opposite Party No.1.

2) The Manager,

Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank,

Kamadenahalli Branch, Kolar Taluk.

(Rep. by Sri. B.N. Vasudeva Murthy, Advocate)         ….  Opposite Party No.2.

 

3) The Assistant Director,

O/o. Assistant Director of Agriculture,

Kolar.

(In-person)                                                               ….  Opposite Party No.3.

(OPs.1 to 3 are same in all

the above cases)

 

                                     : COMMON ORDERS :

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT,

01.   The complainant filed the above complaint against the OPs and prays to direct the OP No.1 to pay the crop insurance amount with 18% interest per annum, compensation and litigation expenses and prays to allow the complaint.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case in C.C. No.06 of 2019 is that, he is an agriculturist having land at Puvandahalli Village bearing Sy No.96/2 to an extent of 2.00 acres, Sy. No.90/2 to an extent of 0.20 gunta and Sy No.79/2 to an extent of 01.11 acres, in all he is having 03.31 guntas of land.  During 2016-2017 he has raised Ragi crop in the said land and insured the crop on 02.08.2016 under Pradhana Mantri Fasal Bhima Yojane (PMFBY) with the OP No.1 by paying premium amount of Rs.1,050/- through OP No.2 Bank.  During 2016-2017 there was no rain and he completely lost the Ragi Crop and he approached OP No.1 on 29.07.2016 to pay the insured amount.  On 05.04.2018 OP No.2 addressed a letter to OP No.1 to send the claim at the earliest.  Thereafter he approached OPs on several times to get the insured amount and also addressed letter to OP No.2 on 21.06.2018 and so also addressed letter to OP No.1 through RPAD on 10.01.2019, but all the efforts made by the complainant are all goes in vain and he has produced documents to support his case and filed this complaint against the OPs and prays to allow the complaint.

 

03.   The brief facts of the complainant case in C.C. No.07 of 2019 is that, she is an agriculturist having land at Yalavara Village bearing Sy. No. 71/3 to an extent of land of 03.00 acres.  During 2016-2017 she has raised Ragi crop in the said land and insured the said crop on 29.07.2016 under Pradhana Mantri Fasal Bhima Yojane (PMFBY) with the OP No.1 by paying premium amount of Rs.840/- through OP No.2 Bank.  During 2016-2017 there was no rain and she completely lost the Ragi Crop and she approached OP No.1 on 30.07.2016 to pay the insured amount.  On 05.04.2018 OP No.2 addressed a letter to OP No.1 to send the claim at the earliest.  Thereafter she approached OPs on several times to get the insured amount and also addressed letter to OP No.2 on 21.06.2018 and so also addressed letter to OP No.1 through RPAD on 10.01.2019, but all the efforts made by the complainant are all goes in vain and she has produced documents to support her case and filed this complaint against the OPs and prays to allow the complaint.

 

04.   The brief facts of the complainant case in C.C. No.08 of 2019 is that, he is an agriculturist having land at Yalavara Village bearing Sy Nos.117/5 & 117/7 to an extent of land of 02.15 acres.  During 2016-2017 he has raised Ragi crop in the said land and insured the said crop on 29.07.2016 under Pradhana Mantri Fasal Bhima Yojane (PMFBY) with the OP No.1 by paying premium amount of Rs.560/- through OP No.2 Bank.  During 2016-2017 there was no rain and he completely lost the Ragi Crop and he approached OP No.2 and in turn the OP No.2 addressed a letter dated: 06.04.2018 to OP No.1 to send the claim at the earliest.  On 21.06.2018 the complainant approached OP No.2 and requested for release of the insured amount and thereafter he approached OPs on several times.  On 10.01.2019 he addressed letter through RPAD to OP No.1 to release the insured amount and all the efforts made by the complainant are all goes in vain.  The complainant has produced documents to support his case and filed this complaint against the OPs and prays to allow the complaint.

 

05.   The brief facts of the complainant case in C.C. No.09 of 2019 is that, he is an agriculturist having land at Yalavara Village bearing Sy No.109/2 to an extent of land of 01.39 acres.  During 2016-2017 he has raised Ragi crop in the said land and insured the said crop on 08.08.2016 under Pradhana Mantri Fasal Bhima Yojane (PMFBY) with the OP No.1 by paying premium amount of Rs.553/- through OP-2 Bank.  During 2016-2017 there was no rain and he completely lost the Ragi Crop and he approached OPs on several times and in spite of that the insured amount was not released.  Thereafter on 10.01.2019 he addressed letter to OP No.1 through RPAD to release the insurance amount and all the efforts made by the complainant are all goes in vain and he has produced documents to support his case and filed this complaint against the OPs and prays to allow the complaint.

 

06.   In the above cases the complainant filed application Under Section 24 of Consumer Protection Act and to support the said IA No.1 the complainant has filed sworn affidavit and prays to condone the delay and allow the said IA No.1.

 

07.   OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel separately and OP No.3 appeared in-person. 

 

08.   OP No.1 filed similar objection in C.C. Nos.06, 07, 08 & 09 of 2019 and contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1.  This OP has narrated about the terms and conditions of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojane (PMFBY) scheme and the procedure regarding premium and contended that the farmer should pay the premium to the bank, then the bank has to enter the proposal in Samrakshne portal and thereafter the said proposal has to be approved by the Bank Manager and it is forwarded to the Insurance Company and the same time the bank has to provide a unique application number to the farmer.  The Insurance Company receives the premium from the Bank and subsidy for the said farmer/complainant.  The threshold yield and actual yield is to be entered by State Government in Samrakshane Portal.  The OP has only access to download the said portal and based on the entry in the said portal, the claim has been registered in that case it would be treated as admissible or inadmissible.  In the above cases, the complainant failed to provide the unique application number.  In C.C. No.08/2019 OP No.1 has specifically contended that, as per the Application No.1612100 and 1612018 of the complainant, this OP contended that, the CCE Yield is higher than the threshold yield in the Marjenahalli Gram Panchayath and there is no loss and no claim is reflected in the portal.  The above complaints are not maintainable either in law or on facts and there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP so also barred by time and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

09.   OP No.2 has filed similar objection in C.C. Nos.06, 07, 08 & 09 of 2019 and contended that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  This OP has contended that, when the customer comes to Bank within cut-off date to insure his crop with OP No.1, the Bank will open the web “Samrakshana Portal”, and collects the premium amount and send the amount through NEFT to OP No.1 and updated details of lands of the customer.  In C.C. No.06/2019 OP No.2 collected premium amount of Rs.1,050/- from the complainant for the year 2016-2017 and sent it to OP No.1 on that day itself.  In C.C. No.07/2019 OP No.2 collected premium amount of Rs.840/- from the complainant on 29.07.2016 for the year 2016-2017 and sent it to OP No.1 on that day itself.  In C.C. No.08/2019 OP No.2 collected premium amount of Rs.560/- from the complainant on 29.07.2016 for the year 2016-2017 and sent it to OP No.1 on the same day and in C.C. No.09/2019 OP No.2 collected premium amount of Rs.553/- from the complainant on 08.08.2016 for the year 2016-2017 and sent it to OP No.1 on that day itself.  The OP No.2 has not received the assured amount to the above complainant account.  The OP No.2 is not necessary party to the above said cases and there is no any relief sought against this OP and there is no cause of action.  The complaint is barred by limitation and there is no reason given in the affidavit in support of IA No.1 and no explanation for each day is given by the complainant and IA is to be rejected and by denying the other allegation and prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

10.   OP No.3 has filed version in all the above said cases and contended that, OP No.3 is not a necessary party to the proceedings.  The complainant has not at all approached the OP in-person and no notice has been issued.  As per the Samrakshane Portal there is no data found and he has produced documents to that effect and there is no deficiency in service against OP No.3 and prays for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

11.   The complainant in C.C. Nos.6 to 9 of 2019 filed affidavit by way of examination-in-chief, the Senior Executive of OP No.1 and the Manager of OP No.2 filed their affidavit by way of examination-in-chief.  OP No.2 filed three documents.  OP No.3 did not adduce any evidence and produced Xerox copy of Samrakshane Portal. 

 

12.   Heard arguments of the counsel for the complainant and OP Nos.1 & 2.

 

13.   Now the Points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

1. Whether the complainant in CC Nos.06, 07, 08 & 09 of 2019 proves deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and are entitle for the relief as prayed?

 

2. Whether the complainant has made out sufficient cause and ground to condone the delay as prayed in IA No.I ?

 

3.  What order?

 

14.   Our findings to the above points are that:-

 

POINT No.1:            Are in the Negative.

POINT No.2:    Are in the Negative.

 

POINT No.3:    As per final order for the

following:-

 

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

15.   We have perused the complaint, affidavit evidence of the complainant and OP Nos.1 & 2 and so also the documents produced by them and the document produced by OP No.3.  The complainant in the above said cases filed the complaint against OPs and prays to direct the OP No.1 to pay the crop insurance amount with 18% interest, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

 

16.   The complainant in the above said cases are the agriculturist and they own agriculture land and to support the said fact the complainant produced RTC extract as per Annexure-2 to 4 in C.C. No.06/2019, Annexure-2 in C.C. No.07/2019, Annexures-2 & 3 in C.C. No.08/2019 and Annexure-2 in C.C. No.09/2019.  The complainant in the above cases raised Ragi Crop in their land for the year 2016-2017 and they insured the said crop with OP No.1.  The complainant in C.C. No.06/2019 has paid the premium of Rs.1,050/- on 02.08.2016, the complainant in C.C. No.07/2019 has paid the premium of Rs.840/- on 29.07.2016, the complainant in C.C. No.08/2019 has paid the premium of Rs.560/- on 29.07.2016 and the complainant in C.C. No.09/2019 has paid the premium of Rs.553/- on 08.08.2016 to the OP No.1 insurance company through OP No.2 Bank and to that effect the complainant produced the proposal form as per Annexure-09 and Bank receipt as per Annexure-07 and acknowledgement as per Annexure-08 for submitting the proposal form, Xerox copy of Aadhar Card as per Annexure-1 and Copy of pass-book as per Annexure-06, copy of representation given by the complainant to OP Nos.1 and 2 as per Annexures-10 to 12 in C.C. No.06/2019 and the complainant in the other cases also produced the said documents and there is no dispute to that effect.  During 2016-2017 there was no rain and the Ragi Crop was lost and in that regard the complainant approached the OPs to release the insured amount and the complainant has also issued legal notice to OP No.1 and thereafter they filed the present complaint before this Forum.

 

17.   On the other hand OP Nos.1 & 2 specifically contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is not maintainable and barred by time.  OP No.1 has also specifically contended in C.C. Nos.6, 7 & 9 of 2019 that, the threshold yield and actual yield is to be entered by the State Government in Samrakshne portal and OP No.1 only access to download the same and based on the entry in the said portal if a claim has been registered in that case it would be treated as admissible or inadmissible and in the above said cases the complainant has failed to provide the unique application number.  In C.C. No.08 of 2019 the OP No.1 has specifically contended that, as per the Application No.1612100 and 1612018 of complainant, this OP contended that, the CCE Yield is higher than the threshold yield at Marjenahalli Gram Panchayath and there is no loss and no claim is reflected in the portal of the complaint and to substantiate the said fact the OP No.1 has produced yield data and it reveals that, with respect to application No.1612100 the threshold yield per Hector shown as 1765.64 and CCE Yield Result per Hector is 2956.373 and with respect to application No.1612018 the threshold yield per Hector shown as 1765.04 and CCE Yield Result per Hector is 2956.337 and there is no short-fall in the yield.      The OP No.2 has also produced statement of accounts of the complainant for remittance of the premium amount to OP No.1 as per Document (a) to (c).  OP No.3 has specifically contended that, OP No.3 is not a necessary party to the proceedings, the complainant has not at all approached in-person with this OP and as per the Samrakshane Portal no data found and he has produced documents to that effect and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3. 

 

18.   On perusal of C.C. Nos. 06, 07 & 09 of 2019 the complainant has not produced copy of Samrakshane Portal to support their case with respect to the premium amount to be payable to the complainant.  OP No.3 has produced the copy of Samrakshane Portal and it reveals that there is no data found to pay any amount to the said complainant and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1.  When there is no mention of any amount in Samrakshane Portal the above said complainants are not entitled for any relief as prayed by them.  In C.C. No.08 of 2019 the OP No.1 has specifically contended that, as per the Application No.1612100 and 1612018 of complainant, this OP contended that, the CCE Yield is higher than the threshold yield in the Marjenahalli Gram Panchayath and there is no loss and no claim is reflected in the portal of the complainant, hence the complainant in the above said cases are also not entitled for any relief as prayed.  On perusal of the contention of OP Nos.2 & 3 the complainant has not prayed any relief against them and they are the formal parties and the case against them has to be dismissed as OP Nos.2 & 3 are the only a formal parties.  Hence as discussed above we answer Point No.1 is in the Negative.

 

 

POINT No.2:-

19.   On perusal of the affidavit in support of IA No.1 with respect to condonation of delay in the above said cases the complainant has sworn about the facts of the case and further has sworn that in C.C. No.06/2019 the complainant has paid premium amount on 02.08.2016 for the year 2016-2017 and crop was completely lost and approached OP No.1 on 05.04.2018 and OP No.2 on 21.06.2018 and issued notice to OP No.1 on 10.01.2019 after lapse of two years, in C.C. No.07/2019 the complainant has paid premium amount on 29.07.2016 for the year 2016-2017 and the crop was completely lost and approached OP No.1 on 05.04.2018 and OP No.2 on 21.06.2018 and issued notice to OP No.1 on 10.01.2019 after lapse of two years, in C.C. No.08/2019 the complainant paid premium amount on 29.07.2016 for the year 2016-2017 and the crop was completely lost and approached OP No.1 on 06.04.2018 and OP No.2 on 21.06.2018 and issued notice to OP No.1 on 10.01.2019, after lapse of two years and in C.C. No.09/2019 the complainant paid premium amount on 08.08.2016 for the year 2016-2017 and the crop was completely lost and approached OPs and issued notice on 10.01.2019 against OP No.1, after lapse of two years.  On perusal of the above said material facts, the complainant in the above said cases paid premium on 02.08.2016, 29.07.2016, 29.07.2016, 08.08.2016 respectively for the year 2016-2017 and the complainant completely lost the crop and approached the OPs only on 05.04.2018 and issued notice to OP No.2 on 21.06.2018 and issued notice to OP No.1 on 10.01.2019, but as per Section 24A(1) the complaint is to be filed within two years from the date of cause of action arise.  But here in the above said cases the cause of action arise when the premium amount was paid i.e., on 20.08.2016, 29.07.2016, 29.07.2016 and 08.08.2016 respectively in the above said cases and there is a delay of 05 months 23 days, 05 months 26 days, 05 months 26 days and 05 months 17 days respectively and the complainant has not at all stated how many days of delay in filing the complaint and not at all stated the number of days of delay and so also not given sufficient cause and reasons to condone the said delay and making correspondence does not give raise fresh cause of action and hence the said application is a bald application and is liable to be dismissed in limine. 

 

20.   Hence under these circumstances as discussed above we answer point No.2 is in the Negative.

 

POINT No.3:-

21.   In view of our findings on Point Nos.1 & 2 and the discussion made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   IA No.I filed by the complainant in C.C. Nos.06 to 09 OF 2019 Under Section 24 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint filed by the complainant in the above cases are hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

02.   The original of this order shall be kept in C.C. No.06/2019 and a copy thereof shall be kept in remaining cases.

 

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 31^st DAY OF JULY 2019)

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT