Complaints filed on: 22-11-2018

& 01-03-2019

                                                      Disposed on: 23-06-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.232/2018 and CC.No.44/2019

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.232/2018

H.G.Narashima Murthy

S/o Junjanna

Aged about 60 years,

R/at Ragalahalli village,

Gowdagere hobli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

2. CC.No.44/2019

Jagadish

S/o Sannappa

Aged about 62 years

R/at Lakkanahalli, Baragur post, Hulikunte hobli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

(By Sri.B.Muralidhara, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

                                        CC.No.232/2018 and CC.No.44/2019

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.232/2018

2. The Manager,

Dist. Central Co-operative Bank, Sira town branch

Sira taluk, Tumakuru district

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

CC.No.44/2019

2. The Manager,

Canara Bank   

Baragur branch

Sira taluk, Tumakuru district

(OP No.2-by Sri.Jagadeeshappa, 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 2016-2017.

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 both the cases and the farmers have paid crop insurance premium through their bankers i.e. Dist. Central Co-operative Bank and Canara Bank,. The prayer in both the cases against the OPs is similar as such to avoid repetition of facts and evidence this common order.

3. The OP No.1 is the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company 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 2016-17 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 pomegranate, Areca nut and Coconut crop due to extreme weather condition during the year 2016-2017. The OPs have failed to respond to the repeated request of complainants hence, these complaints.

5. The particulars of premium paid by the complainants, 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 2016-17. However the OPs have denied 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 Agriculture, Horticulture, Revenue Department, Insurer and other Authority they have paid the compensation amount to the complainants for actual loss suffered by them in respect of pomegranate crop. The complainants have insured their pomegranate, Areca Nut and Coconut,. 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. There is no short coming on the part of OPs as such the OPs 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 2016-17. On behalf of the insurer its Senior Executive Mr.Ramesh.P 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 account extract of complainant in CC.No.44/2019.  ???????  

          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.N.V.Naveen Kumar and learned counsel representing the banks i.e. Sri.Jagadeeshappa and Sri.Shankaraiah.R. In addition to that Sri.Jagadeeshappa learned Advocate submitted written brief on behalf of the 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 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 submitted that on account 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 argued that the insurer has paid meager crop insurance which is less than the premium amount paid by them. As against this the learned counsels for OPs have urged 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 2016-17 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. The learned counsel representing the banks argued that as per data uploaded by the concerned authority the amount is released by the concerned authority and consequently the amount sent by the insurance company the bank has credited to the account of complainants/beneficiaries.

          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 pomegranate and ground nut crops raised in their lands during the year 2016-17.

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 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.

13. 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”.

14. The learned counsel for the OPs have vehemently 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 account extract of complainants and copy of Samrakshane portal and on perusal of these account extracts we may found entry with regard to credit of the crop insurance amount. The complaints have been filed on or after 22-11-2018 even though the complainants have withdrew the crop insurance amount credited to their bank account have not whispered in the complaints. It is simply stated that they have sustained loss of crop due to adverse weather during the year 2016-17.

15. The complainants further averred in the complaints that they have approached the insurer many time and also requested in writing.  The complainants have not 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 the amount to the account of complainants. The complainants have suppressed the material fact in the complaints with regard to receipt of crop insurance amount for loss of crop during the year 2016-17. 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 2016-17. At the cost of repetition the complainants have suppressed the fact of receiving the crop insurance amount during the year 2016-17 though the complaints have filed more than one year 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 2016-17 to know the extent of land and crop raised therein.  The complainants have raised the Pomegranate, Areca nut and Coconut crops in their lands during the year 2016-17. The proposal form filled by the complainants and Samrakshane portal of the State Government indicate that complainants have insured pomegranate, Areca nut and Coconut crop for the year 2016-17.

17. The learned counsel for the complainants have produced Ex-P9 in CC.No.98/2018 on the file of this commission and said information is given by the Horticulture Department, Bengaluru dated 7-12-2020 under the RTI Act. The complainants own lands at K.Ragala halli, Hosuru in CC.No.232/2018 and Barguru on CC.No.44/2019. Ex-P9 information given by the Horticulture Department is with regard to payment made on the basis of crop raised under Restructured Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) for the year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 for Kharif season. Ex-P9 pertains to Sira, Chikkanayakanahalli and Pavagada taluks. The villages where the complainant in CC.No.232/2018 own lands has raised pomegranate crop is not appeared in Ex-P9 but the complainant in CC.No.44/2019 owns land at Barguru village appeared in Ex.P-9 for the year 2016-17. The complainants in CC.No.44/2019 had grown pomegranate in Sy.No.23 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas and for that he had paid insurance premium of Rs.6373-50 and insured for a sum of Rs.1,27,470-00. According to Ex-P9 the concerned authority assessed the compensation of Rs.37,500-00 per hector for loss of pomegranate crop during the year 2016-17. The complainant had raised pomegranate crop in an area less than one hector as such the compensation paid by the insurance company a sum of Rs.31,867-50 is correct and proper.  The insurer has paid proper compensation to the complainant in CCc.No.232/2018 thought his village name not appeared in Ex.P-9 information given by Horticulture department.  

18. The complainant has not produced any document with regard to assessment made by the SLCCCI and DAC & FW. In CC.No.98/2018 the complainant has produced Ex-P2 State Government circular dated 6-10-2016 wherein the State Government has declared 68 taluks as drought out of 22 districts during the year 2016-17 in which Sira taluk is one of the drought taluk. Though the complainant has not averred with regard to less amount fixed (assessment made) for loss of crops by the authority and payment made by the insurer but the insurer has paid in CC.No.232/2018 more than 50% of the insured amount to the crop Coconut and Areca nut. 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.

Keep the original order in CC.No.232/2018 and copy of order in CC.No.44/2019.

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