Complaint filed on: 31-07-2021

                                                      Disposed on: 28-09-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.61/2021

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

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

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER

Sri. Eswaraiah

S/o Basavegowda Basappa,

Aged about 76 years,

Anekatte Village, Kasaba Hobli,

Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk,

Tumakuru District. 

……….Complainant

(By Kum/Smt. H.S.Ambika, Adv.)

                                        V/s                        

1.      The Manager, SBI General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Ground and 1^st Floor, No.3/1,

Rukmini Tower, Sheshadripuram,

Bangalore-20.

2.      The Manager, Vijaya Bank,

          Chikkanayakanahalli Branch,

          Chikkanayakanahalli Tlauk,

          Tumakuru District.

……….Opposite Parties

(OP1 by Sri. N.V.Naveen Kumar., Adv.,)

OP2 by Sri. C.N.Krishnamurthy, Adv.,)

:ORDER:

BY SRI.KUMARA.N., MEMBER

This complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay crop insurance amount of Rs.86,489.75 towards loss of arecanut crop along with interest @ 18% from the date of legal notice issued by the complainant till realization. The complainant filed application U/S 24(A)(1 )of CP Act with regard to delay condo nation, and said application allowed.

2. The OPs are, The Manager, SBI General Insurance Co., Ltd, Bangalore-20 and The Manager, Vijaya Bank, Chikkanayakanahalli Branch, Tumakuru District,   (herein after called as Op1 and Op2).

3. It is the case of the complainant that, he is an Agriculturist, having land of 7 acres and 27 guntas, in Survey No.12/P-P1 at Yerehalli and as per the direction of OP No 1/insurance Company, he has taken crop insurance for the Areca nut crop for the year 2017-18, which was grown in the above said land and paid the premium of Rs.4,324.49 from his account maintained at OP No2.  The complainant further submitted that due to the crop loss in the particular year, the OP No 1/insurance company has to pay insurance amount of Rs.86,489.75, but the OP No1 /  Insurance Company has not paid the said amount, though the complainant has approached the OPs on several times.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice through his counsel on 20.08.2020, asking the OPs to pay the said insurance amount, but the OPs did not turn up.  Hence, this complaint.   

4.      After the service of notice, OP No 1 and OP No 2 appeared through their counsels and filed versions.
5. The OP No.1 contended that as per the said scheme, role of insurance company is very limited.  During the initial stage, the proposal was verified and uploaded by the bank (OP No.2) in the portal.  Thereafter, the loss assessed by the Government authority /agency as per the operational guidelines by considering weather conditions, Rainfall, crop loss and after the tabulation; the claim amount is uploaded by the Government in the designated portal against each eligible farmer. The OP No.1 further contended that, it is the specific case of insurer that as per the assessment made by the Nodal officers consisting of State Government department of Agriculture, Horticulture, Revenue, Insurer and other Authority, based on weather factors / Rain fall, said authority, decides and fix the crop insurance payable to the farmers, accordingly actual loss suffered by the farmers in respect of crop raised in their lands, the insurer directly crediting the compensation / crop insurance amount to the farmers bank accounts, accordingly in this case Rs13,548 was paid to the complainant account No; 145101011003624, which was maintained at OP No2. It is further contended that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case between Ravneet Singh Bagga V. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) 1 SCC 66.  The OP No.1 further contended that the complaint is premature, the operations guidelines of the restructured weather based crop insurance scheme (RWBCIS) provides for a redressal mechanism and in case of disputed claims/sub-standard claims, if any shall be referred through the State Government to DAC & FW (Department of Agriculture, Co-Operation and Farms Welfare).  However, the complainant has not exercised it, rather approached this commission directly.  Hence, on these among other grounds, the OP No.1 prays to dismiss the complaint.
6. The OP No.2 in its version contended that the OP bank has no role in fixing /sanctioning crop insurance amount, and admitted the facts that the complainant paid the crop insurance premium of Rs 4324.49 through his SB account which was maintained at OP No2 and denied the rest of the allegations made by the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complainant against the OP No.2.

7.      The complainant filed his affidavit evidence along with some copies of documents, but they are not marked by the complainant.  One Leo John, Deputy Manager, Legal Dept. has filed affidavit on behalf of OP No.1 and marked the 5 documents as Ex.R1 to R5. Sri. Sandeep .S. Manager has filed affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8.      We have heard the arguments of complainant, OP Nos. 1 & 2’s counsels.  The points that would arise for determination are as here under:

1)      Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service/unfair contract of OPs?

2)      Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

3)      What order ?

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

Point No.1: Negative

Point No.2: Negative

Point No.3 : As per the final order

:REASONS:

10.    Point No.1 & 2: complainant counsel argued that, the complainant paid the crop insurance premium ( for the period 2017-2018) amount of Rs 4324.49 to the OP No1, through the complainant SB account number 145101011003624, which was maintained at OP No 2, with respect to the complainant areca nut crop cultivated in land bearing survey Number 12/P-p1, measuring, 7 acre 27 guntas, , accordingly the sum assured was Rs 86489.75. During the year 2017-2018 due to weather failure the complainant sustained  loss and the OPs need to pay the sum assured amount of Rs 86489.75 to the complainant, but OPs not paid the said amount in spite of several approach, hence prayed to allow the complaint and award such relief. The complainant counsel produced copy of legal notice, dated 20-08-20210, postal acknowledgements, the complainant bank pass book, complainant Aadhar, copy of crop insurance proposal submitted and  RTC of Survey Number 12/P-p1 for the year 2019-20.

11. The OP No 1. counsel argued that, they received the crop insurance premium of Rs 4324.49 from the complainant, and as per the assessment by the authority, for the period 2017-18, the eligible crop insurance of Rs13,548/ paid to the complainant Bank account No 145101011003624 which was maintained at OP No 2 ,further the OP No1 counsel, in their affidavit has reiterated the averments of version. The OP No 1 counsel produced Ex R1. Copy of the RWBCIS guidelines, ExR2 copy of Operational guidelines of PMFBY, ExR3, and Copy of government of Karnataka letter dated 07-06-2017; EX R4 and R5 were copies of Samrakhane portal relate to the crop insurance paid to the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

12. The OP No 2 counsel argued that, the complainant having SB account No 145101011003624 with them and paid the crop insurance premium of Rs 4324.49 to the OP No 1, as such OP No 2 has no role in fixing / determining/sanctioning sum assured crop insurance amount, hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

13.  In this case, the complainant in his complaint stated as insured crop was areca nut, which was cultivated in land bearing survey number 12/P-p1 measuring 7 acre 27 guntas, to prove this complainant produced crop insurance proposal submitted copy, on contrary to this, the complainant produced RTC of said survey number for the period 2019-20, where in crop mentioned / recorded as Coconut and the complainant not produced any believable evidence of crop loss. The OP No 1 counsel produced Ex R4 and ExR5, which were copies of Samrakshne portal, which proves that the OP No 1 paid the crop insurance amount of Rs Rs13,548 / to the complainant.

 14. Point No.3: By considering the above discussion in our view the complainant not proved any deficiency on the part of OPs, Hence, we proceed to pass the following;

:ORDER:

          The complaint against OP No 1 and OP  No 2 is dismissed with no costs