Karnataka

Gadag

CC/131/2019

Basavanneppa. S. Hullur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, AIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

M.B.Sajjanar

20 Jan 2021

ORDER

ORDER

 

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA .C.H. PRESIDENT:

        This complaint is filed by the complainant/s against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

           2.  The above complaint filed by the complainant, states that, he had sowed Jowar crop in 2016-17 in his land and insured for the Rabi yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Bank.

         3.    The averments of the complaint in brief are:

       That the complainants have sowed the Jowar crop in 2016-17 Rabi season in  his land bearing sy.No.29/1 measuring 5-Acres 00-Guntas situated at Hiremannura village of Ron Taluk and insured with AIC for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.940-93 through the OP No.2 Bank in 2016-17 under PMFB for a sum assured amount of Rs.62,728-50, the Rabi crop failed due to shortfall of rain. The crop of the complainant is good and healthy and was growing well.  The year 2016-17 was hit by draughts, because of lack of rainfall, the whole crops of the complainant was ruined and complainant became unhappy.  The complainant expected to receive the compensation for the total loss of the said Rabi season crop.  The policy coverage in case of any natural calamities/disasters to the crops of insured person/farmers, the policy safeguards under such calamities and on this assurance and encouragement, the complainant has purchased the policy to the said year and eagerly waited to receive the crop insurance compensation for the total loss of the crops under the said scheme by all the OPs, but the complainants have not received the compensation amount till today.  The other farmers of their village have received the crop insurance amount except the complainant.  The complainant approached the OPs personally, but it went in vain.  Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice on 28.01.2019 to the OPs calling upon them to pay the compensation, the OP No.2 has given evasive reply for the same.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 30.01.2019 when the complainant got issued legal notice and when the OPs and when the OP No.2 given evasive reply to the notice.   Hence there is deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay Rs.62,728-50 with interest @ 18% p.a, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses and such other reliefs.

        4.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Forum, the OP. No.1, OP No.2 to 4 appeared through their counsel and filed written version, but OP No.5 remained absent.                                         

The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.1:-

            5.         OP No.1 stated that the above complaint is not maintainable both in law and also on facts. The Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana is being implemented in the country under the orders of Government of India vide ref: No.13015/03/2016/credit II dated 23.02.2016 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and cooperation, New Delhi w.e.f., 07.10.2016.  

            It is further submitted that, the complainant has demanded for claim settlement in respect of Jowar(un-irri) crop pertaining to Ron Hobli, Ron Taluk, Gadag District under Rabi 2016-17 Season.  It is further submitted that, they have not received any premium nor declaration from the Nodal Bank in respect of complainant bearing Application No.104110.  Without any premium nor declaration received from the Nodal Bank, there is no question of settlement of claims and there is no cause of action whatsoever arises in this case and no claim is pending to be settled as per the PMFBY.  The status of the complainant in Samrakshane Report shows the complainant’s application “as verified and rejected by the Bank Manager”.   Therefore there is no deficiency of service and prays to dismiss the complaint.

The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.2 to 4:-

6.         OP No.2 to 4 submits that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, the same is barred by time and is not come up with the purview of the Limitation Act.  It is true that, the complainants have insured the crop during 2016-17 Rabi for PMFBY Scheme by paying premium through this OP.  By virtue of directions issued by the Agricultural General Insurance Company, Bangalore, OP No.2 forwarded premium amount through RTGS to AIC on 17.01.2017 and 18.01.2017 for Rs.1,99,765-50, Rs.1,99,796-73, Rs.1,99,937-11, Rs.61,574-60 and Rs.66,485-73 through their Bank A/c No.9010200008570 under UTR Nos. KVGBH 17017081460, 17017081451, 17017081462, 17017081463 and 17018081704 and the same is already informed to the complainant.  OP No.2 is only a collecting agent and mediator between the farmers and AIC and the scope of responsibility of this OP is very limited one.  It is the duty of OP-2 to receive the application/proposal forms and to collect the required premium as per the guidelines of AIC and to forward the same to AIC. It is further submitted that, there is separate machinery to assess the percentage of failure of respective crop and fixing of the percentage and quantum of compensation to be payable to the respective farmers, this OP is neither concerned to the facts of fixing of premium and assessing the loss nor fixing of the compensation to be payable to the farmers.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            7.  The complainant filed Chief affidavit along with 13 documents.  On the other hand, the Manager of OP No.2 filed his chief affidavit on behalf of OP No.2 to 4 along with 8 documents. 

   COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
	Legal Notice
	Reply to Notice by OP No.1
C-4 to 8	5 Postal Receipts
C-9 to 13	Postal Receipts

 

      OP No.2 to 4 FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
OP-1	Operational Guidelines
OP-2	Government order in Kru.E/110/Kra Kai U/2016, Bangalore
OP-3	Check Status
OP-4 to 8	Details of UTR Nos.	1/07/2017 & 18/01/2017

 

            8.      On pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainants and OPs, the following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as averred in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
3. What Order?

9.         Our findings to the above points are:-

Point No. 1:  Affirmative.

Point No. 2:  Partly Affirmative.

Point No. 3:  As per the final Order.

R E A S O N S

             10.  POINT NO.1 AND 2:  Both the points are inter-link and identical. Hence, we proceed both the points together.

 11.      The Complainant/s filed this Complaint against the OPs for claiming crop insurance for the year 2016-17 on failure of weather.   The Complainant submits that he has insured his crop with OPs in the year 2016-17 for the crop of Jowar for Rabi season in the PMFBY which is Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme. The Complainant/s on good faith and for protection of their crop as per publications and advice of OPs insured their crop and paid the premium of Rs.940-93 with OP No.2 and obtained receipt and Sum Assured was Rs.62,728-50.  In this year, Complainant experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OPs failed to pay the insurance amount.  Meantime, the Complainant approached OPs demanding the claim, but it went in vain. Hence, Complainant submits that they have not got the sum assured from the OPs. On the other hand, OP No.4 submits that, they have not received the premium amount from OP No.1 to 3. 

12.       On-going through the records on file, it is an undisputed fact that complainant have insured their crops with OP No.4 through OP No.1 to 3 and OP No.2 received the premium amount from the complainant but, the OP No.4 submits that, the premium amount had not been received from the OP No.2 and it is very clear that, the document produced by them i.e., Samrakshana Computer Generated check status mentioned that, the Bank Manager verified and rejected the proposal. 

13.    The disputed fact is that, whether the OP No.2 sends the premium amount to OP No.4, if so whether the complainant is entitled for the sum assured from OP No.4.  Moreover, complainant has not produced any document to show that, there is a short fall of rain in the year and not produced the document to say that, the other farmers received the sum assured from OP No.4.  Anyhow, it is an unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2 that, it has rejected the proposal of complainant as per the Samrakshana check status and merely saying that, they have send all the premium amount to OP No.4 and there is a responsibility on the shoulder of OP No.2 to produce an individual status and the amount paid receipt to the Commission also.  OP No.2 also failed to produce the document pertaining to the same.  Hence, Commission comes to the conclusion that, the claim of the complainant is to be disposed on non-standard basis. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative & Point No.2 is in Partly Affirmative.          

             14.  POINT NO. 3: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaint filed by the complainant is partially allowed. In the result, we pass the following: 

//O R D E R//

1.  The above Complaint is partially allowed against OP No.2 to 4.

            2.   The OP No.2 to 4 are directed to pay half of the Sum Assured to Complainant within one month, failing which OP No.2 to 4 are liable to pay 18% interest from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

3.  OP No.2 to 4 are liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation.  Further, OP No.2 is directed to pay litigation charges of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.

4.  Complaint against OP No.1 and 5 is dismissed.

            5.  Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 20^th day of January-2021)

 

                  (Shri B.S.Keri)                               (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

                  MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT