Complaints filed on: 22-11-2018

                                                      Disposed on: 14-07-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.228/2018

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF JULY, 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: -

                                        Marakka

                                                W/o Dasappa

                                                Aged about 65 years

                                                R/at Bevinahalli,

                                                Gowdagere hobli,

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.EL94,

TTC Insurance Area,

MIDC, Mahape,

Navi Mumbai-400710

(Crop Insurance)

2. The Manager,

State Bank of India,

Bevinahalli branch

Sira taluk, Tumakuru district

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

(OP No.2-Exparte)

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 crop during the year 2016-2017.

2. The OP No.1 is the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter called as insurer) and the OP No.2 is the State Bank of India, Branch Bevinahalli (hereinafter called as bank) for brevity and convenience.

3. It is the case of complainant that she being the owner of land Sy.No.286/2P1 situated within the limits of Bevinahalli village, Sira taluk, Tumakuru district and she has insured crop with the insurer for the year 2016-17 by paying insurance premium of Rs.7,034-00 through her banker under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (hereinafter called as PMFBY). It is not mentioned in the complaint which crop the complainant had insured for a sum of Rs.1,51,710-00. It is further case of complainant that she has sustained loss due to extreme weather condition during the year 2016-2017. The OPs have failed to respond to the repeated request of complainant hence, this complaint.

          4. In response to notice the 1^st OP has appeared through its learned counsel on 02-01-2019 and even after granting nearly two years time, the 1^st OP did not choose to file either version or affidavit. Hence, on 29-12-2020 it is taken that the 1^st OP has no version and affidavit evidence. The 2^nd OP despite the service of notice proceeded exparte.

          5. The complainant alone has filed her affidavit evidence and produced insurance and proposer data of crop insurance for the year 2016-17.

          6. The complainant and counsel absent hence, the case posted for orders.

          7. On perusal of the complaint, affidavit evidence and insurance and proposer data, 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 bank 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: It is the case of complainant that on account drought during the year 2016-17 she has sustained huge loss as such she is entitled for sum insured amount of 1,51,710-00. The complaint is silent which crop the complainant had insured with the OPs for the year 2016-17. The complainant has produced Insurance and Proposer data for the year 2016-17 which bearing application No.71156. According to this Sy.No.105/2 measuring 06 acres 25 guntas stood in the name of Veerakyathappa S/o Kyathappa. The said owner has paid premium amount of Rs.7,585-00 through his banker Karnataka Bank insuring Pomegranate crop for a sum of Rs.1,51,710-00. The complainant’s name is Marakka w/o Dasappa residing at Bevinahalli, Gowdagere hobli, Sira taluk, Tumakuru district. Insurance and Proposer data is not belonging to the complainant as entry reveals that one Veerakyathappa and Nagaraju s/o Kyathappa are the owners of land Sy.No.105/2 of Kallahalli village, Hulikunte hobli, Sira taluk. It is not mentioned in the complaint and affidavit what is the relationship of complainant with the owners of Sy.N.105/2. On the contrary, it is pleaded in the complaint that the complainant has insured the crop raised in Sy.No.286/2P1 of Bevinahalli village. Therefore, the said Insurance and Proposer data not belongs to the complainant family as she has insured the crop raised in Sy.No.286/2P1 of Bevinahalli village since the Insurance and Proposer data produced by the complainant is of Sy.No.105/2 of Kallahalli village. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove that she has insured the crop with the 1^st OP by paying premium amount through the 2^nd OP bank. The complainant has failed to produce any of the documents to believe that she has insured the crop raised in her land during the year 2016-17. Therefore, the OPs are not liable to pay any claim amount to the complainant. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint filed by Smt.Marakka w/o Dasappa is dismissed without cost.

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 14^th day of July, 2021).

LADY MEMBER            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT