Karnataka

Kolar

CC/8/2018

Sri.G.Venkateshappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

04 Aug 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 23/01/2018

Date of Order: 04/08/2018

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

 

Dated: 04^th DAY OF AUGUST 2018

PRESENT

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

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

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 08 OF 2018

Sri. G. Venkateshappa,

S/o. Gooleppa,

Aged About 68 Years,

Vittappanahalli Village,

Huthur Post, Kolar Taluk.                                                  ….  COMPLAINANT.

(In-person)

 

- V/s –

1) Universal Sompu General Insurance

Company, K.V.Samrat Building,

Kasturinagar, Bangalore.

Rep. by Manager.

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

 

2) The Joint Director,

Agriculture Department,

D.C. Office Premises, Kolar.

(In-person)                                  

 

3) The Manager,

Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank,

Thamballi Branch, Kolar Taluk.

(Ex-parte)                                                                        …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT,

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming Rs.9,615/- towards crop insurance with 18% interest and Rs.3,000/- as compensation and expenses of Rs.2,000/- against the Ops.

02.   The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, he is a poor agriculturist of Vittappanahalli Village and having a land bearing Sy No.87/2 to an extent of 0.28 guntas.  The complainant has insured the crop of the said land under Prime Minister Fasal Bhima Scheme for the year 2016-2017 with Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank and paid premium of Rs.192.30 paisa and for the said year there was no rain and he did not get any yield of Ragi crop.  Thereafter the complainant approached the OP Nos.1 & 2 to get the sum assured amount of Rs.9,615.20 paisa, but it goes in vain and there is a deficiency of service on the part of Ops.  Hence the complainant has filed this complaint seeking the above set-out reliefs against the Ops.

 

(a)    Along with the complaint the complainant has filed following documents:-

(i) Copy of the Insurance and Proposer Data

(ii) RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.87, dated: 25.07.2017.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued from this Forum, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and OP No.2 appeared in-person.  OP No.3 did not appear before this Forum and hence OP No.3 placed exparte.

 

04.   The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief on 09.05.2018 and additional affidavit on 18.07.2018.  Heard arguments on both sides.

 

05.   Now the points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

POINT NO.1:-   Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Ops?

 

POINT NO.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for further relief?

 

POINT NO.3:-   What order?

06.   Our findings on the above points are that:-

POINT NO.1:-  In the Negative

POINT NO.2:-  In the Negative

POINT NO.3:-   As per the final order

                                        for the following:-

REASONS

07.   POINT NO.1:-  We have perused the complaint and the affidavit evidence of the complainant along with documents produced by him.  On perusal of the documents it reveals that, the complainant is a poor agriculturist having agricultural land to an extent of 0.28 guntas and he has produced copy of the RTC Extract to that effect.  For the year 2016-2017 the complainant has raised a Ragi crop in the said land and he has insured the said crop under Prime Minister Fasal Bhima Scheme by making payment of premium amount of Rs.192.30 paisa and he has produced copy of the Insurance and Proposal Data.  For the said year there was no rain and the complainant did not get yield of Ragi Crop and he sustained loss.  Further the complainant has stated that, he has approached the OP Nos.1 & 2 claiming the assured amount for the loss of Ragi crop he sustained, but he has not produced any document for his approaching Ops, such being the case there is no cause of action against the Ops and so also there is no deficiency in service as contended by the complainant against the Ops.  Accordingly we answer this Point is in the Negative.

 

08.   POINT NO.2:-  On perusal of proceedings noted in the order-sheet dated: 25.07.2018 the counsel for OP No.1 has produced D.D. for Rs.9,631/- in the name of the complainant and the same was in receipt of complainant.  Moreover the complainant has not filed any relevant documents to show that, he is entitled for further reliefs and compensation.  Hence we opined that, the complainant is not entitled for any other reliefs.  Accordingly we answer this point is in the Negative.

 

09.   POINT NO.3:-  In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2 and the discussions made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

02.   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 04^th DAY OF AUGUST 2018)

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT