Complaints filed on: 27-9-2018, 30-10-2018

03-11-2018 & 15-11-2018

                                                      Disposed on: 05-01-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.92/2018, CC.No.111/2018,

CC.No.141/2018 and CC.No.151/2018

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

PRESENT

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

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

Complainants: -       

1. CC.No.92/2018

H.Eranna

S/o Hanumanthappa

79 years

R/at Uddayyana Palya

Halenahalli post,

Kallambella hobli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

(By Sri.T.Ramaiah, Advocate)

2. CC.No.111/2018

Geethamma

W/o R.Veeranna,

45 years, R/at Ragalahalli village, Hulikunte Hobli

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

(By Sri.B.Muralidhara, Advocate)

3. CC.No.141/2018

H.K.Sridharamurthy

S/o Kambadaranganna

50 years, R/at Handikunte,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

(By Sri.B.Muralidhara, Advocate)

4. CC.No.151/2018

Joganna

S/o Kenchanna

50 years

R/at Agrahara village,

(Handikunte)

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

(By Sri.B.Muralidhara, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite parties:-       

CC.No.111/2018, CC.No.141/2018 and CC.No.151/2018

1. The Managing Director,

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

(Insurance raised by the company by the applicant)

PPP: Plot No.EL94,

TTC Insurance Area,

MIDC, Mahape,

Navi Mumbai-400710

(Crop Insurance)

(OP No.1-by Sri.N.V.Naveen Kumar, Advocate)

                                                    CC.No.92/2018

2. Insurance officer,

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company,

3^rd floor, KVV Samrat, 217/A, 3^rd Main,

Kasturi nagara, Outer ring road, Bengaluru-43

(OP No.2-by Sri.N.V.Naveen Kumar, Advocate)

CC.No.92/2018

1. Manager,

Canara Bank,

Kallambella branch,

(NH No.4) Sira taluk,

(OP-1 Exparte)

CC.No.111/2018, CC.No.151/2019

2. The Manager,

Canara Bank,

Baragur Branch

Sira taluk, Tumakuru district

(OP No.2-by Sri.Jagadeeshappa, Advocate)

CC.No.141/2018

2. The Manager,

District Central Co-operative Bank, Sira,

Sira taluk, Tumakuru District  

(OP No.2-by Sri.Shankaraiah.R, Advocate)

CC.No.111/2018

3. Tumakuru District Central Co-operative Bank, 

Tumakuru     

(OP No.3-Exparte)

COMMON ORDER

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

These complaints are filed by the complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to award compensation for crop loss during the year 2016-2017 and 2017-18.

2. The OP-Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited is one and the same in all four cases (hereinafter called as insurer). The OP No.1 in CC.No.92/2018, OP.No.2 in CC.No.111/2018 and CC.No.151/2018 is the Canara Bank; OP No.3 in CC.No.111/2018 is the Tumkur District Central Co-operative Bank, Tumkur and OP No.2 in CC.No.141/2018 is the District Central Co-operative Bank, Sira (hereinafter called as bank). Though the complainants are different but seeking the same relief against the OPs hence, this common order.   

3. The complainants have paid the crop insurance premium through the Canara Bank, Tumkur District Central Co-operative Bank, Tumkur and District Central Co-operative Bank, Sira under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (hereinafter called as PMFBY) for brevity and convenience.

4. The complainants in CC.No.111/2018, CC.No.151/2018 and CC.No.92/2018 have paid the premium amount for the year 2016-17 through the Canara Bank and the complainant in CC.No.141/2018 has paid the premium amount for the year 2017-18 through the District Central Co-operative Bank, Sira and in turn the banks have sent the premium amount to the insurer (Except in CC.No.92/2018). It is the case of complainants that due to extreme weather during the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 they have sustained loss in the pomegranate, ground nut, Tur and Areca nut crop as such the OPs shall liable to pay the insured amount. The OPs inspite of repeated requests have failed to respond hence, these complaints.

5. The particulars of premium amount paid by the complainants, amount paid by the Insurance Company etc. is in the below table;

6. The OPs have appeared through their learned counsels and resisted the averments of complaints. The OPs have admitted the payment of insurance premium paid by the complainants during the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 except in CC.No.92/2018.  It is denied by the OPs that there is deficiency in service on their part. It is the case of insurer that as per the assessment made by the Nodal officer consisting of State Government Agricultural, Horticulture and Revenue Departments, insurer and other Authority they have paid actual loss suffered by the complainants in respect of crop raised in their land. There is no short coming on the part of OPs as such they asked to dismiss the complaints. The banks have taken contention that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between them and complainants. The banks have remitted the amount to the account of complainants which was sent by the insurance company as such the banks also asked to dismiss the complaints.    

7. In CC.No.92/2018 the OP No.1-Canara Bank, Kallambella branch, Sira was proceeded exparte.

8. The complainants have filed their affidavit evidence and produced insurance and proposer data of crop insurance for the relevant years. On behalf of the insurer i.e. Insurance Company Senior Executive Mr.Ramesh.P filed affidavit evidence and produced Check Status of Samrakshne Portal of crop insurance. That one Shivaprasad.M, Manager of Canara Bank has filed affidavit evidence and produced Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) Acknowledgment and Account Extract of the complainants.

9. We have heard the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant Sri.B.Muralidhar, Sri.N.V.Naveen Kumar Learned Advocate representing the insurer and Sri.Jagadeeshappa Learned Advocate representing the Canara bank in addition to written arguments submitted by the Canara bank and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainants prove the deficiency in service on the part of OPs by not paying the sum insured amount?

2)      Are complainants entitled to the reliefs sought for?

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

Point No.1: In the negative  

Point No.2: In the negative for the below

REASONS

11. Point No.1 to 2: The learned counsel for the complainants argued that due to drought during the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 the complainants have sustained huge loss as such they are entitled for sum insured amount. The learned counsel further argued that the insurer has paid less than the premium amount towards crop loss suffered by the complainants. As against this the learned counsels for OPs have submitted that the burden is on the complainants to prove the deficiency in service. The Nodal Officer i.e. the officers of Department of Agriculture, Horticulture, Revenue, Insurer and other Authority have assessed the loss sustained by the complainants during the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 and as per yield report the insurer has paid the amount to the complainants. The Insurance Company has no role to play in the payment of amount.

12. 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. The OPs have not disputed the insurance premium paid by the complainants for their crop raised in the land survey numbers during the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 except in CC.No.92/2018 and CC.No.141/2018.

13. 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 method.  On the basis of report submitted by committee loss yield report is updated in the State Samrakshane portal. The Insurance Company has paid the actual loss suffered by the complainants on the loss estimation made by the concerned authority which is shown in the table. The complainants have not placed any material or document to show that they have sustained loss to the extent of sum insured amount. The complainants have only produced proposal data form for insuring crop insurance for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 (Except in CC.No.92/2018). The Insurer has produced Ex-R1 Samrakshane Portal maintained by the State Government wherein data have been uploaded containing the application number, the complainants’ bank account number, claim amount, sum insured, survey number, actual amount paid and the name of crop insured.

14. The learned counsel for OP-Insurer relied upon the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga –vs- KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) I SCC 66 wherein it is held that;

“The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which it required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it”.

15. In CC.No.92/2018 the OP No.2-Insurer has taken contention that it is very clear from the complaint and other documents filed by the complainant that the OP No.1 Canara Bank, Kallambella branch has not completed the data entry in the Smarakshane portal nor sent the documents like proposal form required document for getting the crop insurance in favour of the complainant. The OP has not received any premium from the complainant. That if the bank had failed to perform its role in accordance with scheme norms, the complainant at best can proceed against bank and not against the insurance company. The complainant has produced RTC of land Sy.No.127/5 of Halenahalli village for the year 2018-19 but according to averments of complaint he has insured his Areca nut crop for the year 2016-17. The complainant has produced copy of bank pass book maintained in the OP No.1-Canara Bank which indicates that on 30-6-2016 an amount of Rs.4045=00 debited to his account for Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS). The complainant in CC.No.92/2018 has made correspondence with the Canara bank for not sending the amount to the Insurance Company. This shows that the Canara Bank has not sent the insurance premium amount to the OP No.2- Universal Sompo General Insurance Company. Therefore, there is no liability on the part of Insurance Company for fault committed by the OP No.1-Canara bank. The complainant has not produced any document to show that he has sustained loss of Areca nut crop during the year 2016-17. The complainant has not produced any document to show that the Nodal officers have assessed the crop loss in Halenahalli village, Kallambella hobli during the year 2016-17. Thus the complainant has failed to prove the crop loss suffered during the year 2016-17. On the contrary the OP No.1-Canara Bank shall liable to reimburse the premium amount Rs.4045=00 to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the 1-7-2016 till its payment. In addition to that the OP No.1-Canara Bank shall liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000=00 as it has failed to send the premium amount to the OP No.2-Insurance Company nor given explanation in this case by putting its appearance.

16. In CC.No.141/2018 the complainant in complaint stated that he has insured Ground nut and Tur crop for the year 2017-18. The OP No.1-Insurer in the objections taken contention that the authority assessed that no crop loss and data entry not uploaded in the Samrakshane portal by the State Agriculture Department. The complainant has produced insurance and proposer data in respect of Sy.No.42 of Handikunte village and according to this the complainant has insured Ground nut crop for the year 2017-18. The application number appeared in the proposer data is 43233. The OP No.1-Insurer produced Samrakshane portal in respect of application no.719453 wherein data entry kept blank. Later on the learned counsel for the OP No.1-Insurer filed a memo on 16-12-2020 that OP No.1-the Insurer was not participated in issuing the policies in respect of crop insurance for the year 2017-18 in Tumakuru district and application no.43233 filed by the complainant is not insured with this OP. The document produced by the complainant and OP indicates that averments of complaint are contrary to his own insurance and proposer data for the year 2017-18. The complainant has not impleaded the insurance company that which participated in crop insurance scheme of the year 2017-18. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief in CC.No.141/2018.          

17. In CC.No.111/2018 and CC.No.151/2018 the complainants have not established any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of OPs. The OP-Insurer has paid the amount as per actual loss assessed by the competent authority under PMFBY scheme. The complainants have not placed any material to show that they have sustained loss in rising pomegranate crop to the extent of sum insured for the year 2016-17. Except bald allegations made in the complaints absolutely there is no material to believe that the complainants have sustained loss to the extent of sum assured. The complainants have suppressed the fact of receiving insurance amount during the year 2017 and 2018.  The insurer has sent the loss assessed by the Nodal officer to the Bank and in turn in CC.No.111/2018 the bank has credited amount to the account of complainant on 22-12-2017 and in CC.No.151/2018 the bank has credited amount to the account of complainant on 28-2-2018. These complaints have filed in the month of October, 2018 even then the complainants have suppressed the fact of receiving insurance amount which credited to their account 8 or 10 months prior to the filing complaints. The complainants have suppressed the material fact of receiving crop loss amount which can be found in their account extract produced by the Bank and on the contrary the complaints are silent on this aspect. Thus the complainants have failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP. In view of the above discussion, the complaints bearing CC.No.111/2018, CC.No.141/2018 and CC.No.151/2018 are liable to be dismissed. In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

CC.No.92/2018 is partly allowed directing the OP No.1-Canara Bank, Kallambella branch, Sira to pay Rs.4045=00 with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1-7-2016 till the date payment. It is further ordered that the OP No.1-Canara Bank shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000=00 and litigation cost of Rs.10,000=00 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order otherwise, it carries interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till date of payment

CC.No.111/2018, CC.No.141/2018 and CC.No.151/2018 are hereby dismissed without costs.

Keep the original order in CC.No.92/2018 and copy of order in CC.No.111/2018, CC.No.141/2018 and 151/2018.

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

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 5^th day of January, 2021).

LADY MEMBER                  MEMBER           PRESIDENT