Complaint filed on: 03-11-2018

& 20-12-2018

                                                      Disposed on: 23-06-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.134/2018, CC.No.144/2018 and CC.No.279/2018

DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF JUNE, 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.134/2018

1. Eranna S/o Mudlappa
2. Junjanna S/o Mudlappa

R/at Kotta, Kasaba hobli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur Dist

2. CC.No.144/2018  

Guddaiah

S/o Dibbanna,

Major, Chikkabanagere

Hulikunte hobli,

Sira taluk, Tumakuru dist.

3. CC.No.279/2018

K.Nagaraju S/o Kariyappa

Major, R/at Honnenahalli,

Gowdagere hobli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

 (By Sri.B.Muralidhara, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

CC.No.134/2018, CC.No.144/2018 & CC.No.279/2018

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

(OP No.1-Delected from the record)

CC.No.134/2018

2. The Manager,

Canara Bank,

Madaluru Branch

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

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

CC.No.144/2018,

2. The Manager,

Kaveri Grameena Bank,

Doddahulikunte branch

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

(OP No.2-by Sri.M.C.Prabhu, Advocate)

CC.No.279/2018,

2. The Manager,

State Bank of Mysore,

Bevinahalli Branch

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

(OP No.2-by Sri.B.K.Chandrashekharaiah)

CC.No.134/2018, CC.No.144/2018 & CC.No.279/2018

3. Agriculture Insurance Company of India,

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

Bengaluru-01

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

COMMON ORDER

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

These complaints are 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 crop during the year 2017-2018.

2. In the above cases though the complainants are different but the Insurance Company i.e. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited is the OP No.1 in all the cases (later on deleted from the record). The farmers/complainants have paid crop insurance premium through their bankers i.e. Canara Bank, Kaveri Grameena Bank and State Bank of Mysore. Later on the complainants have impleaded the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited as OP No.3. The relief in all the cases against the OPs is similar as such to avoid repetition of facts and evidence this, common order.

3. The OP No.3 is the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited (hereinafter called as insurer) and the OP No.2 is the Bank (hereinafter called as bank) for brevity and convenience.

4. It is the case of complainants that they being the owners of lands situated in different villages, Sira taluk, Tumakuru district and they have insured their crop with the insurer for the year 2017-18 by paying insurance premium through their bankers under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (hereinafter called as PMFBY). It is further case of complainants that they have sustained loss in the Ground nut crop due to extreme weather condition during the year 2017-2018. The OPs have failed to respond to the repeated request of complainants hence, these complaints.

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

6. The OPs-Insurer and Bankers have appeared through their learned counsels and resisted the averments of complaints by filing written version. The OPs have admitted the payment of crop insurance premium by the complainants 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 complainants for actual loss suffered by them in respect of crop raised in their lands. The complainants have raised ground nut crop.  The bankers have taken contention that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider since the insurer being their customer as such they have sent the insurance amount paid by the complainants to the insurer.  The insurer is directly crediting the compensation amount to the complainants if they are eligible to their SB account of their bank as such there is no role to be played by the banker for payment of compensation amount to the complainants. There is no short coming on the part of OPs as such they have asked to dismiss the complaints.

          7. The complainants have filed their 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 Managers have filed their affidavit evidence and produced copy of PMFBY acknowledgement of the complainants.  

          8. We have heard the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainants Sri.B.Muralidhar, the learned counsel representing the insurer Sri.Mohamed Afroze Ahamed and learned counsels representing the banks Sri.Jagadeeshappa, Sri.M.C.Prabhu and Sri.B.K.Chandrashekharaiah. Apart from the oral arguments the learned counsels for banks have submitted their written brief and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

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

2)      Are complainants entitled to the reliefs sought for?

9. 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

          10. Point No.1 to 2: The learned counsel for the complainants argued that on account drought during the year 2017-18 the complainants have sustained huge loss as such they are entitled sum insured amount. The learned counsel for the complainants 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 complainants 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 complainants during the year 2017-18 and as per yield report and data uploaded in Samrakshane portal the insurer has paid amount to the complainants. The Insurance Company has no role to play in the fixation of loss of crop.

          11. 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 and banks have not disputed the insurance premium paid by the complainants for their Ground nut crop raised in their lands during the year 2017-18.

12. 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 (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 complainants on the loss estimation made by the concerned authority which is shown in the table. The complainants have not placed any materials or documents to show that they have sustained loss to the extent of sum insured amount. The Insurer has produced 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.

13. 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”.

14. The learned counsel for the OPs have argued that the complainants have suppressed the fact of remitting the insurance amount to their bank account from which they have paid the insurance premium and withdrawing the insurance amount paid by the insurer. The banks have produced few cases of account extract of complainants and on perusal of these account extracts and copy of Samrakshane portal we may found entry with regard to credit of the crop insurance amount in the month of July, 2018. All these complaints have been filed on or after 3-11-2018 even though the complainants have withdrew the crop insurance compensation amount credited to their bank account have not whispered in the complaints. It is simply averred in the complaints that they have sustained loss of crop due to adverse weather during the year 2017-18.

15. The complainants further averred in the complaints that they have approached the insurer many times and also requested in writing. None of the complainants have produced any request letter sent to the insurance company or banks for payment of crop insurance. Already the OPs i.e. the insurer and banks 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 amount to the account of complainants. The complainants have suppressed the material fact in the complaints with regard to receipt of crop insurance compensation 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 complainants have not whispered in the complaints or affidavit evidence that the OPs have paid less crop insurance amount though they are entitled for more. Thus the complainants have failed to prove the act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

16. 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 complainants have 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 complainants have suppressed the fact of receiving the crop insurance amount during the year 2017-18 though the complaints have filed more than six months after receiving the said amount. If the complainants have any grievances they would have made complaints before the insurer or banks and after their reply they would have approached the SLCCCI or DAC & FW for decision. The complainants have not made any correspondence with the insurer or banks and on the contrary filed bald complaints even not producing the RTC of lands for the year 2017-18 to know the extent of land and crop raised therein.  In the complaints it is pleaded that the complainants have raised the ground nut crop in their lands during the year 2017-18. The proposal form filled by the complainants and Samrakshane portal of the State Government indicate the complainants have insured ground nut crop for the year 2017-18.

17. The learned counsel for the insurer argued that the complainants have demanded the claim settlement in respect of Ground nut crop pertaining to Hulikunte hobli, Sira taluk under PMFBY Kharif 2017-18. 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 Hulikunte hobli and other hobli of Sira taluk. As per the provisions of prevented sowing 25% of the sum insured has already been paid to the complainants on 11-7-2018 and 31-7-2018.

18. The insured has produced claim settled details for ground nut rain fed crop in CC.No.144/2018. According to this claim settled details the insured has paid 25% of the prevented sowing of the complainants through NEFT of their bank account in the month of July, 2018. It is mentioned in the claim settled details Application number, Proposer name, District, Taluk, Hobli, Grama Panchayath, Crop, Bank name, Sum insured, Amount paid, Account number, Date of payment and Payment mode i.e. Adhaar. In addition to settled details the OPs have produced Samrakshane portal and account extracts with regard payment of compensation to the complainants. Insurer has credited the compensation amount to their Bank account of the complainants from which they have paid the premium.

19. The complainants have not produced any document with regard to assessment made by the SLCCCI and DAC & FW. Though the complainants have not averred with regard to lesser amount fixed or assessment made for loss of Groundnut crop by the authority but the insurer has paid compensation as per the PMFBY guidelines. The complainants have 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 banks as such the complaints are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaints filed by complainants are dismissed without costs.

Place the original order in CC.No.134/2018 and copy of order in CC.No.144/2018 and CC.No.279/2018.

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 23^rd day of June, 2021).

LADY MEMBER                MEMBER                   PRESIDENT