Karnataka

Tumkur

CC/249/2018

Girijapathi S/o Chikkanna ,Major - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director,Universal Sampo General Insurance Co.Ltd ,(Insurance raisedby the company by t - Opp.Party(s)

B.Muralidhara

20 Aug 2020

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 01-12-2018

                                                      Disposed on: 20-08-2020

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

 

CC.No.247/2018, 248/2018 and 249/2018

 

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2020

 

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.247/2018

Kariyamma

W/o Mallaiah, Major,

60 years,

R/at Kereyagala halli,

Sira taluk

 

2. CC.No.248/2018

Sakamma

W/o Narayanappa, Major,

60 years,

R/at Pojaramuddana Halli,

Sira taluk

 

3. CC.No.249/2018

Girijapathi

S/o Chikkanna, Major

50 years,

R/at Kereyagala halli,

Sira taluk

 

(Represented 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.EL94,

TTC Insurance Area,

MIDC, Mahape,

Navi Mumbai-400710

(Crop Insurance)

 

2. The Manager,

Canara Bank,

P.N.Halli branch and

Baraguru Branch

Sira taluk, Tumakuru district

         

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

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

 

ORDER

 

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

 

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

 

2. The OP No.1 and 2 are one and the same in all three cases and the complainants though they are different but claiming same relief hence, this common order.

 

3. The OP No.1 is the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited and the OP No.2 is the Canara Bank. The complainants have paid the crop insurance premium through the OP No.2-Canara Bank under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (hereinafter called as PMFBY) for brevity and convenience. The complainants have paid the premium amount for the year 2016-2017 through the OP No.2-Canara Bank and in turn it has sent to the OP No.1-Insuance Company. It is the case of complainants that due to extreme weather during the year 2016-2017 they have sustained loss in the pomegranate 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.

 

4. The particulars of premium paid by the complainants and amount paid by the Insurance Company is as under:

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Case No.	Name of Complainant	Sy.No	Village	Application Number	Insurance Premium amount and date of premium	Insured crop	Sum  insured	Amount paid by the insurance company
247/18	Kariyamma	269/ 1,2,3	Nadur	36714	7,585.50 29-6-16	Pomegranate	1,51,710/-	4,247.88 on 23-1-18
248/18	Sakamma	2	Pujara Muddana Halli	103551	7,585.50 7-7-16	Pomegranate	1,51,710/-	4,703.01 on 22-12-17
249/18	Girijapati	287	Nadur	103622	12,141/- 5-5-16	Pomegranate	2,42,829/-	6,798.96 on 24-1-18

 

          5. The OP No.1 and 2 have appeared through their learned counsel and resisted the averments of complaints. The OP No.1 and 2 have admitted the payment of insurance premium paid by the complainants during the year 2016-17. It is denied by the OP No.1 and 2 that there is deficiency in service on their part. It is the specific case of OP No.1-Insurance Company that as per the assessment made by the Nodal officer consisting of State Government Agricultural Department, other Authority and Insurer they have paid actual loss suffered by the complainants in respect of pomegranate crop. There is no short coming on the part of OPs as such they asked to dismiss the complaints.

 

          6. The complainants have filed their affidavit evidence and produced insurance and proposer data of crop insurance for the year 2016-17. On behalf of OP No.1 its Senior Executive Mr.Ramesh.P filed affidavit evidence and produced Check Status of Samrakshne Portal of crop insurance. That one Rajanna.B.N, Manager of OP No.2 has filed affidavit evidence and produced Exs.R2 and R3 Acknowledgment of Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme and copy of Account Extract of the complainants.

 

          7. We have heard the oral arguments advanced by Sri.N.V.Naveen Kumar Learned Advocate representing the OP No.1, Sri.Jagadeeshappa Learned Advocate representing the OP No.2 and Sri.B.Muralidhara Learned Advocate for the complainants in addition to written brief submitted on behalf of the complainants and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainants prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and 2 by not paying the sum insured amount?

2)      Are complainants 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 complainants argued that due to drought during the year 2016-17 the complainants have sustained huge loss as such they are entitled for sum insured amount. The learned counsel for complainants further argued that the insurer has paid less than the premium amount towards loss suffered by the complainants. As against this the learned counsels for OPs have vehemently argued that the burden is on the complainants to prove the deficiency in service. The Nodal Officer i.e. the officer of Department of Agriculture, Insurer and other Authority have assessed the loss sustained by the complainants during the year 2016-17 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.

 

          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 OP No.1 and 2 have not disputed the insurance premium paid by the complainants for their pomegranate crop raised in their lands survey numbers during the year 2016-17.

 

11. 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. The Insurer-OP No.1 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.

 

12. The learned counsel for OP No.1 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. In the case on hand the complainants have not established any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of OPs. The OP No.1-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. Thus the complainants have failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In view of the above discussion, the complaints are liable to be dismissed. In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

The complaints filed by complainants are dismissed without costs.

 

Place the copy of order in CC.No.248/2018 and 249/2018.

 

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 Forum on this the 20^th day of August, 2020).

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT