Complaints filed on: 22-11-2018

                                                      Disposed on: 20-07-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.233/2018 and CC.No.235/2018

DATED THIS THE 20^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

Complainants: -       

1. CC.No.233/2018

Kariyanna

S/o Chithappa

Aged about 55 years

R/o Siddapura,

Gowdagere hobli, 

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

2. CC.No.235/2018

R.M.Suresh

S/o Muddappa,

Major, R/at Ragalahalli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

(By Sri.B.Muralidhara, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

                                        CC.No.233/2018 and CC.No.235/2018

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.233/2018

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.235/2018

2. The Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank,

Balaji Nagara, Sira town, Tumakuru district

(OP No.2-by Sri.M.S.Harish Babu, 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 Indian Overseas 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 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 Banks have appeared through their learned counsels in response to notice.

7. The OP No.1-Insurer in CC.No.233/2018 has resisted the averments of complaint by filing written version. The 1^st OP has admitted the payment of crop insurance premium by the complainant for the year 2016-17. However the 1^st OP has 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 complainant has insured his pomegranate crop but there is no loss assessed and entered by the State Government Agriculture Department in the Samrakshane portal of during the year 2016-2017. There is no short coming on the part of 1^st OP as such the 1^st OP has asked to dismiss the complaint.

8. In CC.No.235/2018 the OP No.1 insurer and OP No.2 bank have not filed version and affidavit evidence. In CC.No.233/2018 the 2^nd OP bank has not filed version and affidavit evidence.

          9. The complainants have filed their affidavit evidence and produced insurance and proposer data of crop insurance for the year 2016-17. In CC.No.233/2018 the 1^st OP insurer Senior Executive Mr.Ramesh.P filed affidavit evidence and produced Check Status of “Samrakshne Portal” of Crop Insurance.

          10. We have heard the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for 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 insurer and banks by not paying the sum insured amount?

2)      Are complainants entitled to the reliefs sought for?

11. 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

          12. 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. As against this the learned counsels for OP has 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 farmers. The Insurance Company has no role to play in the fixation of loss of crop.

          13. 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 his pomegranate crop raised in his land during the year 2016-17.

14. 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.

15. 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”.

16. The complainants 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 stated with regard to non loss of crops as per data uploaded by the concerned authority under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) scheme in Samrakshane portal. Thus the complainants have failed to prove the act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

17. 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. 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 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 crop for the year 2016-17.

18. The learned counsel for the complainants have produced Ex-P9 in CC.No.98/2018 on the file of this commission (copy produced) and said information is given by the Horticulture Department, Bengaluru dated 7-12-2020 under the RTI Act. The complainants have own lands at Siddapura and Ragala halli in CC.No.233/2018 and CC.No.235/2018. 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 complainants in CC.No.233/2018 and CC.No.235/2018 own lands has raised pomegranate crop not appeared in Ex-P9 for the year 2016-17.

19. The complainants have 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. 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.233/2018 and copy of order in CC.No.235/2018.

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 20^th day of July, 2021).

LADY MEMBER                MEMBER                   PRESIDENT