Karnataka

Kolar

CC/3/2018

Sri.B.S.Subramanyam - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

30 Jun 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 12/01/2018

Date of Order: 30/06/2018

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

 

Dated: 30^th DAY OF JUNE 2018

PRESENT

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

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

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 03 OF 2018

Sri. B.S. Subramanyam,

S/o. Late Somappa,

Aged About 66 Years,

Barli Village, T. Gollahalli Post,

PIN - 563 116, Bangarpet Taluk,

Kolar District.                                                              ….  COMPLAINANT.

(In-person)

 

- V/s –

(1) Universal Sompo General

Insurance Company, K.V Samrat

Building, Kasturinagar, Bangalore.

(Rep. by Sri. B. Kumar, Advocate)

 

(2) The Joint Director,

Agriculture Department,

D.C. Office Premises, Kolar.

(In-person)

 

(3) The Manager,

PKGB Bank, Badamakanahalli

Branch, KGF Taluk, Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri.N.G. Vasudev Moorthy, Advocate)          …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant in-person having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of directions to Ops to pay compensation amount of Rs.67,735/- with 18% interest and for mental agony of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and cost of Rs.10,000/- spent towards court expenses.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, being an agriculturist under the reference of OP No.2 he had availed crop insurance under “Pradana Mantri Fasal Bhima Yojane” for the Ragi crop grown in his land bearing Sy. No.222 situated at T. Gollahalli Village and SY. No.2/2 situated at Ayyapalli Village both together measures to an extent of 04.37 acres during 2016-2017.  And that on 02.08.2016 he had paid Rs.1,628/- premium towards the said insurance at Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Badamakanahalli Branch.

 

(b)    And during 2016-2017 since there was no rain in Kolar District he had lossed the Ragi crop.  So he approached Ops for several time for the said insurance claim, but Ops have not respond positively.  Hence he had issued notice to Ops on 16.10.2017 but he did not get any reply from Ops.  So contending the complainant has come up with this complaint on hand by seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued by this Forum Ops have put in its appearance and submitted their written version.

(a)    The contention of OP No.1 is that, the procedure regarding premium that first of all farmers should pay the premium to the bank.  Then the Bank enter proposal in Samrakshne portal.  Thereafter, the said proposal is approved by Bank Manager itself and is forward to insurance company.  The insurance company receives the premium from bank and subsidy for the said farmer/complainant.  It is, further submitted that Threshold Yield and Actual yield is to be entered by State Government in Samrakshne portal and this OP have 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.  As per the Application of complainant 1144562, this OP would like to inform to this Hon’ble Court that the answering OP paid claim of this farmer on 17 April 2017 with below mentioned UTR No:-

Application No.	Proposer Name	Bank	Branch	Grand Total	Liquidation Date	Month	UTR No.
1144562	Subramanyam B.S.	PKGB	Badamakanahalli	48,540	4.15.2017	17-Apr	BARBC17105312550
1144562	Subramanyam B.S.	PKGB	Badamakanahalli	16,071	4.15.2017	17-Apr	BARBC17105306812

 

But this claim payment got rejected and returned to our account due to wrong account no updated in Samrakshne portal by concerned bank.  Now, we have reprocessed the claim to the concerned bank branch for further transfer to the farmer. Please find below complete detail of re-payment:-

 

Payment status for payment done on 17-April	Return Reason	Bulk Payment Status	Liquidation Date	UTR No.	Final Status
RETURNED	ACCOUNT DOES NOT EXIST	Bulk Payment Done	2/3/2018 0:00	BARBC18033315873	PAID
RETURNED	ACCOUNT DOES NOT EXIST	Bulk Payment Done	2/3/2018 0:00	BARBC18033315873	PAID

04.   As per the proceedings noted in the order-sheet dated: 17.02.2018 Sri. Nagaraj.S, Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bangarpet, has appeared with authorization on behalf of OP No.2 and henceforth not submitted any version.

 

05.   The OP No.3 by admitting the fact of payment of premium towards said crop of complainant with OP No.3 Bank and strictly contends that, it is not a necessary part to the proceedings of this case because OP No.3 has remitted the said premium amount to OP No.1 Insurance Company and they have settled the claim for Rs.48,540/- and a sum of Rs.16,071/- in total Rs.65,611/- was credited to complainant’s SB account dated: 26.02.2018 and subsequently complainant has withdrawn the claim amount from the bank, even though complainant had not report to this Forum and filed this complaint.  Thus this complaint is not maintainable and no deficiency in service of OP No.3, hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

06.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and also submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i) Copy of Notice issued to OP No.1 & its postal receipt

(ii) Copy of RPAD acknowledgement received by OP No.1

(iii) Copy of Notice issued to OP No.2 & its postal receipt

(iv) Copy of RPAD acknowledgement received from OP No.2

(v) Copy of the challan dt. 02.08.2016 of PKGB

(vi) Copy of the Proposal Form

(vii) Copies of RTC extract pertaining to Sy. Nos. 2 & 222

07.   Sri. Vinay Kumar.M has submitted sworn to his affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.1 by way of examination-in-chief and submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i) Details of the said insurance policy with account statement.

08.   OP No.3 has submitted the below mentioned documents:-

(i) Complainant’s Statement of Account dt. 11.06.2018 (running to

    02 Pages)

09.   Heard arguments of complainant and OP Nos.1 & 3 in spite of appearance of OP No.2 on 17.02.2018, rest of all hearing dates OP No.2 has remained absent before this Forum.

 

10.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

POINT NO.1:-   Whether OP No.3 is a necessary part to this case?

 

POINT NO.2:-   If so, is there deficiency in service on the part of Ops as alleged by complainant?

 

POINT NO.3:-  If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation as he sought?

 

POINT NO.4:-   What order?

 

11.   Our findings to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:-  In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:-   In the Affirmative as against OP No.1 &

                           OP No.3 and in the Negative as against 

                             OP No.2

 

POINT NO.3:-  Partly Affirmative

 

POINT NO.4:- As per the final order

                                        for the following:-

REASONS

POINT NOS.1 to 3:-

12.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

13.   OP No.3 in its version contended that, it is not a necessary party to this case on hand.  On perusal of pleadings and documents of complainant as well as OP Nos.1 & 3 it is an admitted fact that, the complainant had paid premium of Rs.1,628/- at Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Badamakanahalli Branch OP No.3.  Such being the things to know about updates and claim of said insurance policy Bank is the main role and necessary party to adjudicate this case on hand.  Then how come and on what grounds OP No.3 has contended as it is not a necessary party to this case on hand would remain as question?  In view of above reasons we opined that, OP No.3 is necessary party to this case on hand.

 

14.   On perusal of the document submitted by OP No.3 i.e., statement of account dated: 11.06.2018 for the account vide No.10534100003543 of the customer name: Subramanyam being the complainant in this case, on 26.02.2018 crop insurance claim 2016-17 amount of Rs.48,540/- and Rs.16,071/- was credited.  That is the claim amount of crop insurance that the complainant has sought in this case.

 

15.   The complainant had paid premium amount towards said insurance on 02.08.2016 at OP-3 Bank and said crop lossed during 2016-2017 itself, in this regard the complainant had written a letter to Ops, which in this receipt on 16.10.2017 (reliance on copy of notice and postal acknowledgements submitted by complainant).  But both OP Nos.1 & 3 did not show any least interest to reply for this notice of complainant by stating the reasons for the delay as contended in this complaint by way of their version.  This shows the negligence of the OP Nos.1 & 3. 

 

16.   OP No.1 in its version averted as that, if the banks had failed to perform its role in accordance with scheme norms, the complainant at best can proceed against banks and not against insurance company.  If so, what prevented this OP No.1 to reply the notice of complainant on 16.10.2017 itself?  What is the logic behind it to take such contention after filing of this complaint after a delay of more than 01 year and OP No.1 has failed to prove the cause for so much of delay too that amounts to deficiency in service.

 

17.   And on the part of OP No.3 to also it had not replied for the letter dated: 16.10.2017 and delayed for more than 01 year and as per state of account claim amount credited to complainant’s account on 26.02.2018 that is after filing of this complaint in this forum by the complainant on 12.01.2018.  In view of the above discussion we observed that, there is an delay of compliance of complainants claim by both OP No.1 the Insurance Company and OP No.3 the Bank, thus OP Nos.1 & 3 have rendered deficiency in service and both are liable to pay compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.

 

18.   On going through entire pleadings and documents of both parties we noticed that, OP No.2 is only referred the complainant to take policy, apart from that, there is no part of it, hence we considered it as a formal party. Since OP No.2 is a formal party, case against OP No.2 is dismissed.  However the claim of complainant has already been credited to him as per the statement of accounts, so the complainant is entitled to receive compensation for the delay of compliance from both OP Nos.1 & 3 jointly and severally.  Hence we answered point No.3 partly affirmative.

 

19.   Now to fix compensation for the delay of more than 01 year we relied on the principal enunciated in Appeal No. 948/2017 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.  The principal reads thus:-

“the complainant was made to wait indefinitely and he was made to spend amount without any proper reasons, it would be just and proper to award compensation to an extent of Rs.25,000/-.”

 

Therefore we relied on this principal since it directly applicable to this case and we award compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant which has to paid by OP No.1 Insurance Company and OP No.3 Bank jointly and severally.

 

POINT No.4:-

20.   In view of aforesaid findings on Point Nos. 1 to 3 and the discussions made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint is allowed partly as against OP No.1 and OP No.3 with cost of Rs.2,000/- as hereunder:-

 

(a)    We are herewith directing the OP No.1 Insurance company and OP No.3 Bank to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to complainant as compensation jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

 

02.   The case against OP No.2 is herewith dismissed with no costs.

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 30^th DAY OF JUNE 2018)

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT