Complaint filed on: 16-11-2018

                                                      Disposed on: 07-04-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.180/2018

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF APRIL, 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

Complainant: -

Erajunjanna

S/o Eranna, 45 Years,

Rs/ Bommarasanahalli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

 (By Sri.B.Muralidhara, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The Managing Director,

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

(Insurance raised by the company by the applicant)

PPP: Plot No.N.EL 94,

TTC Insurance Area,

MIDC, Mahape,

Navi Mumbai-400710

2. The Manager,

Canara Bank,

Sira town branch

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

3. Agriculture Insurance Company of India,

No.18, 3^rd Floor, Karnataka Krushika Samaja, Hudson circle, Nrupathunga Road,

Bengaluru-01

(OP No.1-Delected from the record)

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

(OP No.3-Sri.Mohamed Afroze Ahamed, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite parties to pay crop insurance compensation with interest @ 18% p.a. for the loss of Tur and Ground nut crops during the year 2017-2018.

2.  The 1^st OP is the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter called as insurer) and the 2^nd OP is the Bank (hereinafter called as bank). The complainant has not paid crop insurance premium through the 2^nd OP i.e. Canara Bank but paid through State Bank of Mysore, Sira branch. Later on the complainant has impleaded the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited as OP No.3 (hereinafter called as second insurer) for brevity and convenience.

3. It is the case of complainant that he being the owner of land situated at Kotta village, Sira taluk, Tumakuru district and he has insured his Tur and Ground nut crop with the insurer for the year 2017-18 by paying insurance premium through his bank SBM, Sira branch under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (hereinafter called as PMFBY). It is further case of complainant that he has sustained loss in the Tur and ground nut crops due to extreme weather condition during the year 2017-2018. The OPs have failed to respond to the repeated request of complainant hence, this complaint.

4. The particulars of premium paid by the complainant and compensation amount paid by the Insurance Company is in the below table;

5. The OPs-Insurer and Banker have appeared through their learned counsels and resisted the averments of complaint by filing written version. The OP insurer has admitted the payment of crop insurance premium by the complainant for the year 2017-18. The OPs have denied that there is deficiency in service on their part. 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 they have paid the compensation amount to the complainant for actual loss suffered by him in respect of crop raised in his lands. The complainant has raised ground nut and Tur crops. The banker has taken contention that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider since the complainant has not paid the premium through this bank but it has paid premium through State Bank of Mysore, Sira Branch.  This OP bank is not necessary party to this complaint. The insurer is directly crediting the compensation amount to the complainant account if they maintained SB account in their bank as such there is no role to be played by the banker for payment of compensation amount. There is no short coming on the part of OPs as such they have asked to dismiss the complaint.

          6. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced insurance and proposer data of crop insurance for the year 2017-18. On behalf of the insurer one Mr.J.M.S.Ahamed, Deputy Manager filed affidavit evidence and produced Check Status of “Samrakshne Portal” of Crop Insurance. The Bank Manager has filed his affidavit evidence.

          7. We have heard the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant Sri.B.Muralidhar, learned counsel representing the insurer Sri.Mohamed Afroze Ahamed and learned counsel representing the bank Sri.Jagadeeshappa. Apart from the oral arguments the learned counsel for complainant and bank has submitted their written brief and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of insurer and banks by not paying the sum insured amount?

2)      Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

8. 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

          9. Point No.1 to 2: The learned counsel for the complainant argued that on account drought during the year 2017-18 the complainant has sustained huge loss as such he is entitled to sum insured amount. The learned counsel for the complainant urged that the insurer has paid meager crop insurance amount which is less than the premium amount paid by them. As against this, the learned counsels for OPs have submitted that the burden is on the complainant to prove the deficiency in service. The Nodal Officers i.e. the officers of Department of Agriculture, Horticulture, Revenue, Insurance company advisor and other authority have assessed the loss sustained by the complainant during the year 2017-18 and as per yield report and data uploaded in Samrakshane portal the insurer has paid amount to the complainant. The Insurance Company has no role to play in the fixation of loss of crop.

10. 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 insurer has not disputed the insurance premium paid by the complainant for ground nut and tur crops raised in his lands during the year 2017-18.

11. Under PMFBY the State Government has formed the State Level Co-ordination Committee on crop insurance (SLCCCI) and District Level committee to assess the loss suffered by farmers by using Crop Cutting Experiments (CCE) 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 complainant on the loss estimation made by the concerned authority which is shown in the table. The complainant has not placed any materials or documents to show that he has sustained loss to the extent of sum insured amount. The Insurer has produced Ex-R1 Samrakshane Portal maintained by the State Government wherein data have been uploaded containing the application number, the complainant bank account number, claim amount, sum insured, survey number, actual amount paid and the name of crop insured.

12. The learned counsel for OP 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”.

13. The learned counsel for the OPs have argued that the complainant has suppressed the fact of remitting the insurance amount to their bank account and withdrawing the same paid by the insurer. The insurer has produced in Samrakshane Portal and on perusal of this we may found entry with regard to credit of the crop insurance amount in the month of October, 2018. This complaint has been filed on 16-11-2018 even though the complainant has withdrew the crop insurance amount credited to his bank account has not whispered in the complaint. It is simply averred in the complaint that he has sustained loss of crop due to adverse weather during the year 2017-18.

14. The complainant further averred in the complaint that he has approached the insurer many time and also requested in writing. The complainant has not produced any request letter sent to the insurance company or bank for payment of crop insurance. Already the OPs i.e. the insurer and bank have paid the crop insurance amount as per data uploaded by the concerned authority under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) scheme in Samrakshane portal. The OPs have credited the amount to the account of complainant. The complainant has suppressed the material fact in the complaint with regard to receipt of crop insurance amount for loss of crop during the year 2017-18. If the OPs have not paid any amount towards loss of crop then it would have been held against the OPs that they have committed the act of deficiency of service. The complainant has not whispered in the complaint or affidavit evidence that the OPs have paid less crop insurance amount though they are entitled for more. Thus, the complainant had failed to prove the act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

15. Topic Sl.No.XVI of Operational Guidelines of PMFBY says with regard to procedure for settlement of claim to the farmers. Under this topic Clause-6 says that the insurance company shall resolve all the grievances of the insured farmers and other stakeholders in the shortest possible time. Clause 7 says disputed claims / sub standard claims, if any will be referred within three months of claim disbursement through State Level Coordination Committee on Crop Insurance (SLCCCI)/State Government to Department of Agriculture Cooperation and Famers Welfare (DAC & FW) for consideration and decision of DAC & FW in case of any interpretation of provisions of scheme or disputes will be binding on State Government /Insurance Company /Banks and the farmers. In the preceding para it is observed that the complainant has not produced documents pertaining to correspondence made with the insurer and banks for non-payment of crop insurance or questioning the fixing of loss sustained in the crop raised during the year 2017-18. At the cost of repetition the complainant has suppressed the fact of receiving the crop insurance amount during the year 2017-18 though the complaint has filed more than one month after receiving the said amount. If the complainant has any grievances he would have made complaint before the insurer or bank and after their reply he would have approached the SLCCCI or DAC & FW for decision. The complainant has not made any correspondence with the insurer or bank and on the contrary filed bald complaint even not producing the RTC of lands for the year 2017-18 to know the extent of land and crop raised therein.  In the complaint it is pleaded that the complainant has raised the ground nut and tur crops in their lands during the year 2017-18. The proposal form filed by the complainant and Samrakshane portal of the State Government indicates that the complainant has insured Ground nut and tur crop for the year 2017-18.

16. The learned counsel for the insurer argued that the complainant has demanded the claim settlement in respect of Ground nut crop pertaining to Sira Kasaba Hobli under PMFBY Kharif 2017-18 season. As per 21.3.1 of revised PMFBY scheme and guidelines insurance cover will be provided to farmers in case of widespread incidence of eligible risks affecting crops in more than 75% of area sown in a notified unit at early stage, but not later than 15 days from cutoff date for enrolment, leading to total loss of crop or the farmers are not in a position to either sow or transplant the crop. As per the Government order dated 10-8-2017 the provision for prevented/failed sowing and prevented planting/germination claims is invoked in respect of Sira hobli. As per the provisions for prevented sowing 25% of the sum insured has already been paid to the complainant on 11-07-2018.

17. The complainant own lands within the limits of Kotta village, Kasaba hobli. The SLCCCI for the Kharif 2017-18 by following the guidelines of PMFBY scheme has assessed the loss of crop by taking into consideration past 5 years yield data per hector and there was a shortfall of 111.912 kg per hector Tur crop within Sira hobli limits. The claim was 63.586 for Tur rain fed crop due to area correction factor the sum insured is scale down in the proportionate ratio of 0.8144 as per paragraph No.XVIII (4) of PMFBY scheme guidelines. The calculation made as revised sum insured of Tur crop after scaling down = sum insured * area correction factor (ACF) comes to Rs.30996.0 * 0.8144 = 25243.14. Shortfall/Threshold yield * Revised Sum Insured = Claim. Thus after applying ACF, the eligible claim amount i.e. 111.912/176 * 25243.14 = 16051.19. By applying the above guidelines the insurer has credited Tur crop compensation amount to the owners of land of Kotta.

18. The insured has produced claim settled details of the complainant. According to this claim settled details the insured has paid 25% of the prevented sowing of the complainant through NEFT to the bank account of the complainant maintained in State Bank of India, Tumkur for ground nut crop in the month of October, 2018. It is mentioned in the Samrakshane Portal Application number, Proposal  name, Bank name, Sum insured, Amount paid, Account number, Date of payment and Payment mode i.e. Adhaar. In this case insurance premium has paid by the complainant through OP No.2 Canara Bank but compensation credited to his account maintained in the State Bank of India vide Ex.R1.

19. The complainant has not produced any document with regard to assessment made by the SLCCCI and DAC & FW. Though the complainant has not averred with regard to lesser amount fixed or assessment made for loss of ground nut and Tur crop by the authority and payment made by the insurer but the insurer has paid as per the PMFBY guidelines. The complainant has suppressed the fact of payment of compensation amount by the insurer for the loss of crop during the year 2017-18. In view of the above discussion, there is no deficiency in service on the part of insurer and bank as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed without costs.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant 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 7^th day of April, 2021).

LADY MEMBER            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT