Complaint filed on: 04-03-2021

                                                      Disposed on: 27-06-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

#201, 202, 1^st Floor, Indian Red Cross Building Complex,

Ashoka Road, Tumakuru-572 101. 

CC.No.29/2021

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF JUNE, 2022

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc(Agri)., L.L.B,MBA, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

Narsappa G.S.

S/o Siddappa ,Aged about

71 years, R/at Annapurneswari Garden House, Gangasandra,Attikatte Post,

Gubbi taluk, Tumkur district  

(By Sri.Sujith Sujith Kumar G.P, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. Bank Manager,

State Bank of India,

Sri Tontadarya Nilaya,Sampige,

Turvekere Taluk, Tumkur district 572225

2. Deputy Director of Horticulture.

S.S. Puram, Tumkur

Tumkur district 572101

3. General Manager, HDFC ERGO

General Insurance Company, 1^st Floor,HDFC House,165-166,Backbay Reclamation,H.T Parekh Marg,Church gate. Mumbai 400020

(OP No.1 – by Sri SUT, Advocate,

OP No.2 by Sri BK District Govt Pleader

OP No.3-by Sri BKC , Advocate)

:O R D E R:

SRI.KUMARA, N. - MEMBER

This complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to direct the Opposite parties to pay crop insurance sum assured amount of Rs.1, 28,000-00 and Rs 50,000-00 towards mental agony and litigation cost with interest of 18 % p.a from the date of complainant.

2.      The OP Nos.1, 2 and 3 are Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Sri Tontadarya Nilaya,Sampige, Turvekere taluk, Tumkur district. Deputy Director of Horticulture, S.S Puram Tumkur and General Manager, HDFC ERGO, General Insurance Company, 1^st Floor, HDFC House,165-166,Backbay Reclamation, H.T Parekh Marg, Church gate. Mumbai , 400020. (The OP No.1, 2 and 3 hereinafter called as OP bank, Horticulture Department and insurer respectively).

3. It is the case of complainant (Adhar Number 7519 6519 3209) that complainant having SB account bearing Number 64107290817 and KCC loan account bearing Number 64063255788 with OP Bank and being the owner of land bearing Sy.No.96 measuring 4.00 acres, out of which 2.20 acres having areca nut crop and remaining area having coconut trees (Horticulture Crops), which is situated within the limits of Hosur village, Dandinashivara hobli, Turvekere taluk, Tumakuru district. The complainant being a loanee, which was compulsory to have crop insurance during 2018-19 i.e. Karnataka Raitha Suraksha  Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (KRS - PMFBY) and OP 3 was insurer , accordingly on 22-06-2018 with the advise and help of OP No 2 the complainant filled the insurance proposal form bearing Number K.R 14953 and submitted to the OP Bank (OP 1) and accordingly on 05-07-2018 OP bank deducted premium of Rs 6472-96 from the complainant account and sum assured was Rs 128000-00. It is further case of complainant that during the year 2018-19 on account of drought he could not get any crop consequently, sustained loss. The complainant did not receive crop insurance amount, then legal notice dated 28-01-2021 served to release of crop insurance amount but there was no response hence, he approached this Commission.

4. The 3^rd OP-Insurer appeared through its learned counsel in response to notice and filed IA under order XII Rule 2 r/w section 151 of CPC to direct complainant and OP No 1 to produce relevant documents accordingly complainant produced documents to OP No 3 and said IA disposed off and further OP No 3 filed written version and affidavit by paying imposed cost of Rs 500-00 to the complainant, stating that all the averments of the complainant are denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurer or negligence on its part. On the above grounds, the insurer 3^rd OP asked to dismiss the complaint.

5. The OP No.1 counsel filed vakalath and not filed Version or objections. The District Government pleader appeared on behalf of OP No 2 and filed memo and citations, and asked to dismiss the complaint against OP No 2.

          6. The complainant has filed affidavit evidence and got marked Exs-P1 to P12,and  3^rd OP filed affidavit evidence.

        7. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel representing the OP No 2 and in spite of several opportunity OP No 3 not advanced arguments, and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

2)      Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

8.      Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the affirmative     

Point No.2: Partly affirmative for the below

:R E A S O N S:

Point No.1 to 2:

9.      The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the OP Bank deducted crop insurance premium amount before the cutoff date from the complainant account. The OP No.3 has taken contention in the written version and affidavit evidence that the there was no consumer relationship with the complainant. OP No 2 counsel in his memo submitted that OP Bank is responsible and liable for collecting crop insurance premium from the complainant and required documents and accordingly submit the same to the insurer. The complainant produced Ex P 1, which was OP pamphlet where in Govt. order on RWBCIS for 2018-19 and approved crops, crop insurance details given, Ex P 2 Filled crop insurance proposal form by the complainant, ExP3 complainant Bank account statement where in Rs 6472=00 deducted towards crop insurance, Ex P 4 acknowledgement of received filled form with relevant documents from the complainant for the purpose of crop insurance for 2018-19, Ex P5,RTC of complainant for 2018-19,EX P6 copy of crop and survey number certified by Village accountant, Ex P 7 copy of samrakshane port, Ex P 8 Copy of uploading mismatched crop, Ex P 9 copy of legal notice, Ex P 10 government of Karnataka circular related to crop insurance for 2018-19, Ex P 11 photo of areca nut garden of complainant and Ex P12 was complainant KYC i.e. Copy of Adhar card and PAN.

          10. The PMFBY aims at supporting sustainable production in agriculture sector by way of providing financial support to farmers suffering crop loss or damage arising out of unforeseen events and stabilizing the income of farmers to ensure their continuance in farming. Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) aims to mitigate the hardship of the insured farmers against the likelihood of financial loss on account of anticipated crop loss resulting from adverse weather conditions relating to rainfall, temperature, wind, humidity etc.

11. Under PMFBY the State Government has formed the State Level Co-ordination Committee on crop insurance and District Level committee to assess the loss suffered by farmers by using Crop Cutting Experiments (CCE) method.  On the basis of report submitted by committee loss yield report is updated in the State Samrakshane portal.

12. The complainant produced pamphlet issued by the OP No 2, i.e. Department of Horticulture Tumakuru explaining the purpose of PMFBY, payment of insurance premium by farmers and benefits etc, as there was no deficiency in the service of OP 2 complaint against OP 2 liable to be dismissed.

13. As per the operation guidelines of PMFBY “35.5.2.13-Banks should ensure that cultivator are not be deprived of any benefit under the scheme due errors/omissions of the concerned branch/ PACS, and in case of such errors, concerned agencies shall have to make good all such losses”.  

14. In this case Complainant produced Ex P 3, which is copy of complainant bank pass book maintained at OP 1 which reveals that  on 04-03-2021 OP No 1 deducted Rs 6472=95 and paid to OP No 3 (Insurance Company) and complainant Ex P4 was the acknowledgement of OP No 3 bearing No SBIN0040107 – 148508 given by OP No 1 to the complainant which proves that Complainant having loan amount of Rs 300000=00 and OP No 3 received the said crop insurance proposal. The OP no.1 (OP Bank) not properly submitted the crop details to the OP No 3 i.e. insurance company, even though farmer/complainant submitted all necessary details like Survey Number, Crop, Village, Hobli, Taluk along with supporting documents to the OP No.1 (OP Bank). The OP 1 (OP Bank)  not updated crops as Areca nut even though mismatch message received and complainant approached the OP No 1 several times to do needful in this regard. In the above discussion, by considering, operation guidelines of PMFBY “35.5.2.13, this commission is in the opinion of the OP No. 1(OP Bank) committed deficiency in service by not submitting necessary details like Survey Number, Crop, Village, Hobli, Taluk along with supporting documents to the OP No 3 (insurance company ) even though the complainant (Loanee account) submitted the same to the OP1 (OP Bank), and crop insurance premium paid (OP No 1(OP Bank) Deducted from the complainant account). The complainant is entitled to crop insurance amount of Rs.128000-00 with interest @ 8 % per annum from 04-03-2021 till the date of payment with litigation expenses of Rs.10, 000-00. The OP No.1 (OP Bank) shall liable to pay crop insurance compensation and litigation cost to the complainant. In the result, we proceed to pass the following;  

:O R D E R:

The complaint is partly allowed directing the OP No.1/Bank to pay a sum of Rs.1,28,000-00 with interest @ 8% per annum from     04-03-2021 till the date of payment.

It is further ordered that the OP No.1/Bank shall pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000-00 to the complainant within 45 days from the date of order otherwise; it carries interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment.

The complaint against OP Nos.2 and 3 is dismissed.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.