Complaint filed on: 22-11-2018

                                                      Disposed on: 07-04-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.243/2018

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF APRIL, 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: -

Rajanna S/o Ramanna

Aged about 60 years

R/at Kaluvarahalli, 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.N.EL 94,

TTC Insurance Area,

MIDC, Mahape,

Navi Mumbai-400710

(Crop Insurance)

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

2. The Manager,

Canara Bank,

Tavarekere branch

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

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

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 Canara Bank (hereinafter called as bank) for brevity and convenience.

3. It is the case of complainant that he being the owner of land bearing Sy.No.22/1 situated at Kaluvarahalli village, Sira taluk, Tumakuru district and he has insured his crop with the 1^st OP insurer for the year 2016-17 by paying insurance premium through the 2^nd OP bank under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (hereinafter called as PMFBY). It is further case of complainant that he has 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 complainant hence, this complaint.

4. The particulars of premium paid by the complainant and compensation amount paid by the Insurance Company is in the below table;

5. The OPs-Insurer and Banker have appeared through their learned counsels and resisted the averments of complaint by filing written version. The OPs have admitted the payment of crop insurance premium by the complainant 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 complainant for actual loss suffered by him in respect of pomegranate crop. The complainant has insured his pomegranate crop. The bank has 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 complainant. There is no short coming on the part of OPs as such the OPs have asked to dismiss the complaint.

          6. The complainant has filed his 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 Manager has filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of account extract of complainant.

          7. We have heard the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant Sri.B.Muralidhar, the learned counsel representing the insurer Sri.N.V.Naveen Kumar and learned counsel representing the bank Sri.Jagadeeshappa. In addition to this the complainant and OP No.2 learned counsels have submitted written brief and 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: The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on account drought during the year 2016-17 the complainant has sustained huge loss as such he is entitled for sum insured amount. The learned counsel for complainant argued that the insurer has paid meager crop insurance which is less than the premium amount paid by him. As against this the learned counsels for OPs have urged that the burden is on the complainant 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 complainant during the year 2016-17 and as per yield report and data uploaded in Samrakshane portal the insurer has paid amount to the complainant. The Insurance Company has no role to play in the fixation of loss of crop. The learned counsel representing the bank 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 complainant.

          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 insurer and bank have not disputed the insurance premium paid by the complainant for his pomegranate crop raised in his land 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 (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 complainant on the loss estimation made by the concerned authority which is shown in the table. The complainant has not placed any materials or documents to show that he has 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 complainant’s 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. The learned counsel for the OPs have vehemently argued that the complainant has suppressed the fact of remitting the insurance amount to his bank account from which he has paid the insurance premium and withdrawing the insurance amount paid by the insurer. The bank has produced account extract of complainant and on perusal of the account extract we may found entry with regard to credit of the crop insurance amount in the month of July, 2017. The complaint has been filed on 22-11-2018 even though the complainant has withdrew the crop insurance amount credited to his bank account has not whispered in the complaint. It is simply stated that he has sustained loss of crop due to adverse weather during the year 2016-17.

14. The complainant further averred in the complaint that he has approached the insurer many time and also requested in writing. The complainant has not produced any request letter sent to the insurance company or bank for payment of crop insurance. Already the OPs i.e. the insurer and bank 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 complainant. The complainant has suppressed the material fact in the complaint 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 complainant has not whispered in the complaint or affidavit evidence that the OPs have paid less crop insurance amount though he is entitled for more. Thus the complainant has failed to prove the act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

15. 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 complainant has not produced documents pertaining to correspondence made with the insurer and bank 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 complainant has suppressed the fact of receiving the crop insurance amount during the year 2016-17 though the complaint has filed more than seven months after receiving the said amount. If the complainant has any grievances he would have made complaint before the insurer or bank and after their reply they would have approached the SLCCCI or DAC & FW for decision. The complainant has not made any correspondence with the insurer or bank and on the contrary filed bald complaint even not producing the RTC of lands for the year 2016-17 to know the extent of land and crop raised therein.  In the complaint it is pleaded that the complainant has raised the Pomegranate crop in his land during the year 2016-17. The proposal form filed by the complainant and Samrakshane portal of the State Government indicates the complainant has insured pomegranate crop for the year 2016-17.

16. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex-P9 information given by the Horticulture Department, Bengaluru dated 7-12-2020 under the RTI Act (In CC.No.98/2018 on the file of this Commission and copy of the same produced in this case). The complainant owns land at Kaluvarahalli, Sira taluk. Ex-P9 information given by the Horticulture Department 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 village where the complainant own land has raised pomegranate crop is not appeared in Ex-P9 for the year 2016-17. As already observed that the complainant has not produced even RTC to know the extent of land and crop raised in Sy.No.22/1. The OP document Ex.R1 acknowledgment shows that the complainant has insured the crop in land Sy.No.22/1 measuring two acres 32 guntas. Though the complainant has not sustained loss as per Ex.P9 the SLCCCI have assessed the loss of crop and paid Rs.4338=00 per hector insurance for pomegranate crop loss during the year 2016-17. In view of the above discussion, there is no deficiency in service on the part of insurer and bank as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed without costs.

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 7^th day of April, 2021).

LADY MEMBER                MEMBER                   PRESIDENT