Complaints filed on: 03-11-2020
Disposed on: 17-11-2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF NOVEMBER 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
CC.No.70/2020
Ravikumar H.N S/o Nanjundaiah,
A/a 47 years, R/o A.Hosahalli Village,
Banasandra Post, Turuvekere Taluk,
Tumakuru District.
……….Complainant
(By Sri. G.K.Srinivasa, Advocate)
V/s
1. The Deputy Director,
Department of Horticulture,
Zilla Panchayath, Tumakuru,
Tumakuru District.
2. The Manager, Canara Bank,
Turuvekere Branch, Turuvekere,
3. Prop:Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Agri
Construction, Opp:Municipal Complex,
Dibburahalli Road, Sidlaghatta,
Chikkaballapura District.
4. TATA AIG General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
5th Floor, West Entrance, Khanija Bhavan,
Race Course Road, Bangalore-560 001.
……….Opposite Party
(OP-1 By District Government Pleader)
(OP-2 By Sri. Jagadeeshappa, Adv.,)
(OP-3 By Sri. N. Nagaraj, Adv.,)
(OP-4 By Sri. N.V.Naveen Kumar, Adv.,)
:ORDER:
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed against the OP U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the complainant towards the loss, mental agony and towards the deficiency of service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint as under:-
The complainant is an Agriculturist and he having interest in innovative farming and therefore he has applied for seeking assistance in farming a capsicum before the OP No.1 under Krushi Bhagya Yojane with an intention that there would be financial assistance and subsidy benefit to the agriculture and as such the complainant had approached the OP No.1 and according to the terms and conditions of the Krishi Bhagya Yojane to grow capsicum an establishment of high-tech poly house is one of the condition precedent. The OP No.1 considered the request of complainant issued work order dated:16.12.2017 to grow the capsicum in a land owned by complainant bearing Sy.No.6/11at A.Hosahalli Village in respect of 2000 Sq.Mtr with condition to insure the crop with certain insurance company.
2(a). The complainant further submitted that in order to grow the capsicum, he sought financial assistance from OP No.2 and the OP No.2 with a condition that the crop and shelter should be insured according to OP Nos. 1 & 2 and OP Nos. 1 & 2 also insisted to get the high-tech poly house form OP No.3 and hence without any alternative the complainant accepted for the same and entrusted construction work to OP No.3 and thereafter the OP No.2 had granted loan and adjusted the subsidy of Rs.10,00,000/- towards loan account and also the OP No.2 paid a sum of Rs.16,82,000/- to OP No.3 and at that time the OP No.2 assured that the loan amount of complainant was insured with TATA AIG General Insurance company and for that the OP No.2 has collected the required premium amount from complainant.
3. After service of notice, the OP Nos. 1 to 4 appeared through their counsels. The OP Nos.1, 2 and 4 have filed their separate version. But the OP No.3 did not file its version.
3(a) The OP No.1 in his version has contended that under the KRUSHIBAGYA SCHEME and Poly House Construction Programme, the OP No.1 has given permission to the complainant for construction the poly house. As per the guidelines and terms and conditions in the work order, the complainant got constructed poly house from M/s Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Agri Construction, Sidlaghtaa, which was approved by Horticulture Directorate. The It is further contended materials used to construct poly house has three years warrant and if any manufacturing defect occurred in the said materials, the company has to replace the same free of costs. It is further contended as per the guidelines of Directorate, the farmer beneficiary has to insure his poly house. The complainant got insured his poly house with TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore on 22.11.2018 and the same was in force for 12 months from the date of obtaining the policy.
3(b). The OP No.1 further contended that as per the guidelines, at the time of construction of the poly house, the officers of the Department have visited the spot and inspected the poly house and after getting approval from the Department, the OP No.1 released subsidy of Rs.8,22,500/- to the Bank from where the complainant obtained loan and also released Rs.1,96,967/- to grow capsicum crop, to construct KRUSHI HONDA and to install Diesel motor pump. On 19/04/2019 and 20/04/2019 due to rain and stormy waves, the ploy house constructed by the complainant got damages (poly sheets only) and subsequently on 24/04/2019 the Assistant Horticulture Officer visited and inspected the spot and gave endorsement to the complainant to claim the insurance from the Insurance company. But the complainant has not taken any action and thereby suffered loss.
3(c). The OP No.1 further contended that as per the notification of the Directorate bearing No. /DH/ JDH/ VEG/ SADH/ PHYA/ AHO/56/2016-17, dated:24.10.2017 in Page No.532, Para-2 of the Point No.II, it is written as “In case of any disputes between farmer and the registered manufacturer/supplier regarding Poly House and shade net house related matters after verification by the designated committee and satisfaction of the farmer and registered manufacturer/supplier with the verification report, the registered manufacturer/supplier only be responsible for legal matters in this regard and department will not be part of any legal proceedings. Further, if any damage occurred to the poly house due to storm waves, it is the duty of the farmer beneficiary to get the insurance from the Insurance Company and get it repaired. There is no any deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and hence prays to dismiss the complaint.
3(1)(a). The OP No.2 in its version contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts against the OP No.2 and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP. There is no cause of action for the complaint and also there is no negligent on the part of this OP.
3(1)(b). The OP No.2 further contended that in order to grow the Capsicum, complainant has sought Financial assistance from OP No.2 since there is a condition from OP No.1 that the crop and the shelter would be insured and the OP No.2 insisted the complainant to insure the poly house. In that regard, OP No.1 have insisted the job of construction of High Tech Poly House to OP No.3. Accordingly, as there was no alternative, the complainant has accepted the proposal and entrusted to OP No.1 and the OP No.2 has sanctioned Rs.15,00,000/- dated:10.09.2018 and out of it, the OP No.2 has disbursed Rs.11,86,000/- and out of sanctioned loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, the OP No.2 has adjusted subsidy of Rs.8,22,500/- towards poly house on 29.01.2019 and OP No.2 adjusted subsidy of Rs.1,96,967/- towards crop.
3(1)(c). The complainant approached the OP No.2 with all project report for opening of the poly house and the OP No.2 has sanctioned Rs.15,00,000/- loan and disbursed Rs.11,86,000/- and further the OP No.2/Bank insisted the complainant to insure the poly house and crops in any insurance company and also gave option for the complainant and the complainant opted TATA AIG General Insurance Company i.e. OP No.4 and the complainant also supplied pro-forma of TATA AIG General Insurance, OP No.4 and accordingly, he has filled the policy, as such OP No.2/bank has not insisted to take TATA AIG policy. The OP No.2/Bank will not responsible as the complainant himself opted the said policy.
3(1)(d). The OP further submitted that the complainant has conveyed the bank and informed that due to heavy rain and wind, the poly house damaged and immediately OP No.2/Bank has informed the complainant to approach TATA AIG General Insurance Company and put-forth the claim. It is further submitted that the complainant has given representation to OP No.2 and the OP No.2 forwarded the same to OP No.4. The complainant has not stated in the complaint that when actually the project collapsed due to heavy rain and wind and what are the legal steps taken by him to claim the insurance from OP No.4 and moreover the complainant has not produced police document like police complaint copy, FIR etc to claim the insurance.
3(1)(e). The OP No.2 further contended that the OP No.2 is not insurance company. The complainant has to approach insurance company to claim the policy amount with procedure. Hence, there is no any deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2 and hence prays to dismiss the complaint.
3(2)(a). The OP No.4 in its version has contended that the complainant has got the policy bearing No.2270058058-00-00 valid from 12.10.2018 to 11.11.2019 for a sum of Rs.15,90,000/- got insured, shop excluding garment shops, located at Ravi Kumar H.N. S/o Nanjundaiah, 1st Cross, Vidyanagara, Turuvekere Town, Chikkanayakanahalli and the risk covered items are furniture and fixture or office equipment only and the said policy name is business guard policy and the said policy did not cover the ploy house situated at Sy.No.6/11 of A Hosahalli Village.
3(2)(b). The OP No.4 further contended that the damage/loss caused to the poly house was on 19.04.2019 and the said fact was brought to the notice of the OP after lapse of 7 months ie. Is on 23.10.2019 and after receipt of the information from the complainant, this OP has appointed on Suresh Ramanathan, an approved IRDA Surveyor to assess the loss and to report the same. The OP has received the Final survey report on 13.11.2019 and it came to know from the survey report that “the claim is not admissible under the coverage of the policy and also due to mismatch in the risk location”.
3(2)(c). The OP No.4 further contended that after receipt of the survey report on 03.11.2019, the OP has issued a letter ot he complainant on 21.11.2019 and clearly stated that the risk location is not covered under the policy and the same was served on the complainant, but there was no response from the complainant and therefore, on 30.01.2020, the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant by issuing a repudiation letter stating that “in the instant claim, affected property is not covered under the policy and the risk location is different from the loss location, hence the subject claim falls outside the scope of the policy. Hence, there is no deficiency on their part. On these among other grounds, the OP denied all other allegations made by the complainant in his complaint and prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P15. One Sri. Raj Kumar Behera, Senior Manager has filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.2 and marked the documents at Ex.R1 & R2. Sri. Manjunatha G., working as AVP, Legal Department, has filed his affidavit on behalf of OP No.4 and marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R5. OP No.1 did not file the affidavit evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments from complainant, OP No.1 and 3. The OP No.2 submitted that his written arguments be treated as oral arguments.
6. On perusal of the pleadings and documents, the points that would arise for our consideration are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
2) Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?
7. Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order
:REASONS:
8. On perusal of pleadings evidence and documents of the parties, it is seen that Under KRISHI BAGYA YOJANE to grow capsicum an establishment of high-tech poly house is one of the condition precedent and the complainant had obtained permission from OP No.1 (Horticulture Department) for construction of poly house. The OP No.1 considered the request of the complainant issued work order dated:16.12.2017 to grow capsicum in a land owned by the complainant bearing survey No.6/11 of A Hosahalli Village in respect of 2000 Sq.Mtrs with condition to insure the crop with certain insurance company. To grow the capsicum, the complainant sought financial assistance from OP No.2 (Canara Bank). The OP No.1 and OP No.2 have insisted the complainant to insure poly house and to get the high tech poly house from OP No.3. Later, the complainant entrusted the poly house construction to the OP No.3 and the OP No.2 has granted the loan to the complainant and adjusted the subsidy of Rs.10,00,000/- loan account of the complainant and the OP No.2 paid a sum of Rs.16,82,000/- to OP No.3. As per guidelines of the Agricultural Directory, the complainant got insured his poly house with TATA AIG General Insurance company Limited, Bangalore on 22.11.2018 and the same was in force for 12 months from the date of obtaining the policy. On 19/04/2019 and 20/04/2019 due to rain and stormy waves the poly house constructed by the complainant got damages (ply sheets only and subsequently on 24/04/2019 the Assistant Horticulture Officer visited and inspected the spot and gave endorsement to the complainant to claim the insurance from the Insurance Company.
9. The OP No.4 has contended that the complainant has got the policy bearing No.2270058058-00-00 valid from 12.10.2018 to 11.11.2019 for a sum of Rs.15,90,000/- got insured, shop excluding garment shops, located at Ravi Kumar H.N. S/o Nanjundaiah, 1st Cross, Vidyanagara, Turuvekere Town, Chikkanayakanahalli and the risk covered items are furniture and fixture or office equipment only and the said policy name is business guard policy and the said policy did not cover the ploy house situated at Sy.No.6/11 of A Hosahalli Village.
The OP No.4 further contended that the damage/loss caused to the poly house was on 19.04.2019 and the said fact was brought to the notice of the OP after lapse of 7 months ie. Is on 23.10.2019 and after receipt of the information from the complainant, this OP has appointed one Suresh Ramanathan, an approved IRDA Surveyor to assess the loss and to report the same. The OP has received the Final survey report on 13.11.2019 and it came to know from the survey report that “the claim is not admissible under the coverage of the policy and also due to mismatch in the risk location”.
10. Now the main allegation of the complainant is that the policy was in force, but OP No.4 repudiated the claim on the ground that “in the instant claim, affected property is not covered under the policy and the risk location is different from the loss location, hence the subject claim falls outside the scope of the policy.
11. On perusal of R3, it is seen that the policy issued on 17.10.2018 and address of the risk coverage area shown as “Ravikumar H.N. S/o Nandundaiah, 1st Cross, Vidya Nagar, Turuvekere Town, Chikkanayakanahalli, - shop excluding garment shops and the complainant approached the Bank for the necessary correction and he was given quote form by the insurer dated:22/11/2018 covering the poly house with the crop and with the address, where the poly house is mentioned as per actual i.e. Survey No. 6/11 A Hosahalli Kasaba Hobli, Banasandra Post, Turvekere, Karnataka – 572 212. But OP No.4 has failed to produce any documents to show that, the corrections are made in the policy i.e. address of the risk location. The OP No.4 has not produced the proposal form submitted by the complainant to establish their contentions regarding the risk location mentioned by the complainant and even complainant has not submitted any documents in this regard. There is no answer from OP No.4 or complainant regarding whether corrections carried out or not in above quote dated:22/11/2018. If OP No.4 carried out the correction in the policy as per quote, then the complainant is entitled to claim the losses suffered by him. The silence of OP No.4 in this regard shows their recklessness attitude and for this attitude the complainant suffered losses. Hence, OP No.4 is liable to punitive damages of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.
12. The Ex.R4 and R5 clearly states that there is 7 months delay in intimation of loss as per Ex.R2, the poly house damaged on 19/04/2019 at 11.30 PM, but intimated to the insurance company on 23.10.2019. For the delay in intimation to the OP No.4, there is no explanation or valid reasons assigned by the complainant and the complainant also failed to produce documents to show that on 19.04.2019, there was heavy rain and sudden strom. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim from OP No.4 even though the surveyor assesses the losses. There is no allegation of deficiency in service from OPs 1 to 3. Hence, the complaint against OP Nos. 1 to 3 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we pass the following:-
:O R D E R:
The complaint is allowed in part.
The OP No.4 is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only) as punitive damages to the complainant. The OP No.4 is further directed to Rs.15,000/-(Rs.Fifteen Thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.
The complaint is dismissed against the OP Nos. 1 to 3.
The OP No.4 is also directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainants and opposite parties at free of cost.
