Karnataka

StateCommission

A/2015/2022

TATA AIG GENERAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt.G. Kavitha W/o P. Dyamanna Aged About 38 years, - Opp.Party(s)

Prashant T Pandit

08 Jun 2023

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
First Appeal No. A/2015/2022
( Date of Filing : 07 Oct 2022 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 10/08/2022 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/323/2019 of District Chitradurga)
 
1. TATA AIG GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. 2nd Floor, JP & Devi Jambukeswar Arcade Millers Road, Bangalore Rep by its Legal Manager
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smt.G. Kavitha W/o P. Dyamanna Aged About 38 years,
Guddadaneralakere Village Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk Chitradurga District Karnataka State
2. The Branch Manager
Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank Guddadaneralakere Village Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk Chitradurga District Karnataka State
3. Joint Director of Horticulture
Vegetables Horticulture Department, Director of Horticulture Lal Bhag, Bengaluru 560 004
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 08 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

      Dtd.08.06.2023                         A/2015 & 2087/2022                                                                                                                          

COMMON ORDER

       HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

  1.    These are the appeals filed U/s.41 of CPA 2019 by OP.1 & OP.3/Appellants aggrieved by the order dtd.10.08.2022 passed in CC/323/2019 on the file of Chitradurga District Commission.
  2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard the learned counsels.
  3. It is the case of the Complainant that during 2017-18 she has insured the crops grown in her field by paying prescribed premium under the scheme PMFBY (Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bhim Yojana). Since the OPs not settled the claim for the loss of crops she raised consumer complaint.  OP.1 & 3 contested the matter and by filing copy of ‘Samrakshana portal’ showed the disbursement of claim amount. On an enquiry, Commission below held OP.1 & 3 deficient in their service since there is no mentioning of the name of the Complainant in the said document and proceeded to allow the complaint directing OP.1 & 3 to pay insured amount of Rs.1,65,927/- along with cost and compensation. Complaint is dismissed against OP.2 since not pressed. Being aggrieved by the said order, OP.1 & 3 preferred these separate appeals on the ground that District Commission failed to verify the scheme conditions under which Complainant insured her crop and passing impugned order is untenable in law and on facts, which liable to be set aside.
  4. It is the contention of Appellants that, they have rightly paid the claim under the Govt., scheme to insured/Complainant which is eligible claim amount as per the terms & conditions of the scheme of Rs.17,470/- by filing copy of ‘Samrakshana portal’, wherein could see under compensation details claim amount:Rs.17,470.59, claim status: claim approved, survey no.116/*/2, actual amount paid: Rs.17,470.59. The insurance claim of Rs.17,470.59 has already been settled on 22.10.2020 by the insurance company which is the actual eligible claim. The claim has been calculated as per the guidelines, term sheet and the weather parameters and related date. These processes are being carried out through Samrakshane portal and all the details are available to the insurance company in its login. 
  5. These contentions of Appellants are sufficient to hold that the Complainant was paid the eligible claim amount as per the terms & conditions of the scheme, since Complainant has not rebutted the said payment said to have been transferred to her account. Further we did not find any relevant documents/records before the Commission below for the complete loss of crop to substantiate her case. However, Commission below without looking into these aspects, committed error in allowing the complaint. Hence, we proceed to allow both appeals, consequently set aside the impugned order holding OP.1 & 3 have settled the eligible crop insurance claim of the Complainant. In the result both complaints are dismissed.
  6. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful. 
  7. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

 

 

 

           Judicial Member                       President

NS

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.