Complaint filed on: 13-02-2019

                                                      Disposed on: 11-08-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.21/2019

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF AUGUST, 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: -

Mudlappa S/o Chikkanna,

50 years,  

R/at Naduru, Gowdagere hobli, 

Sira taluk, Tumakuru 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,

Karnataka Bank,

Sira Branch

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

3. Agriculture Insurance Company of India, No.18, 3^rd Floor, Karnataka Krushika Samaja, Hudson circle, Nrupathunga Road,

Bengaluru-01

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

(OP No.2-by Sri.M.C.Prabhu, Advocate)

(OP No.3-by Sri.Mohamed Afroze Ahamed, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI.KUMARA.N, MEMBER

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 pomegranate crop during the year 2016-2017.

2.  The 1^st OP is the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited and 3^rd OP is the Agriculture Insurance Company of India (hereinafter called as insurer) and the 2^nd OP is the Karnataka Bank (hereinafter called as bank). The complainant has paid crop insurance premium through the 2^nd OP i.e. Karnataka Bank.

3. It is the case of complainant that he being the owner of land Sy.No.9/1 situated at Naduru village, Sira taluk, Tumakuru district and he has insured his pomegranate crop with the OP No.1-insurer for the year 2016-17 by paying insurance premium through his 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, compensation amount paid by the Insurer etc. is in the below table;

5. The OP No.1 and 3-Insurer and OP No.2-Bank 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. The OPs have denied that there is deficiency in service on their part. It is the specific case of insurer that as per the assessment made by the Nodal officers consisting of State Government department of Agriculture, Horticulture, Revenue, Insurer and other Authority they have paid the compensation amount to the complainant for actual loss suffered by him in respect of crop raised in his lands. The complainant has raised 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 to insurer.  The insurer is directly crediting the compensation amount to the complainant account if they maintained SB account in the bank as such there is no role to be played by the bank for payment of compensation amount. There is no short coming on the part of OPs as such they have asked to dismiss the complaint.

6. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced insurance and proposer data and Check Status of “Samrakshne Portal” of Crop Insurance. On behalf of the 1^st OP insurer its Senior Executive Mr.Ramesh.P filed affidavit evidence. On behalf of the 2^nd OP bank its Branch Manager Sri.Himavantharaju has filed his affidavit evidence.  The 3^rd OP insurer Regional Manager Smt.D.Usha has filed his affidavit evidence.

          7. We have heard the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant Sri.B.Muralidhar, learned counsel representing the OP No.1 and 3 insurers Sri.N.V.Naveen Kumar and Sri.Mohamed Afroze Ahamed and learned counsel representing the 2^nd bank Sri.M.C.Prabhu. In addition to this the learned counsel representing the 2^nd OP bank has submitted written arguments 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 argued that on account drought during the year 2016-17 the complainant has sustained huge loss as such he is entitled to sum insured amount. The learned counsel for the complainant urged that the insurer has paid meager crop insurance amount which is less than the premium amount paid by them. As against this, the learned counsels for OPs have submitted 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 the amount to the complainant. The Insurance Company has no role to play in the fixation of loss of crop.

          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 (SLCCCI) 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 complainant and 1^st OP Insurer has produced Samrakshane Portal maintained by the State Government wherein data have been uploaded containing the application number, the complainant bank account number, claim amount, sum insured, survey number, actual amount paid and the name of crop insured.

12. The learned counsel for 1^st OP 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 argued that the complainant has suppressed the fact of remitting the insurance amount to his bank account and withdrawing the same paid by the insurer. The complaint has been filed on 13-2-2019 even though the complainant has withdrawn the crop insurance amount credited to his bank account not whispered in the complaint. It is simply averred in the complaint 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 times and also requested in writing. The complainant has not produced any request letters 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 the 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 pomegranate 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 one year 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 he 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 land for the year 2016-17 to know the extent of land and crop raised therein.  It is pleaded in the complaint that the complainant has raised Pomegranate crop in his land during the year 2016-17. The proposal form filled by the complainant and Samrakshane portal of the State Government indicates that the complainant has insured Pomegranate crop for 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 filed by complainant 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 11^th day of August, 2021).

LADY MEMBER                                MEMBER                       PRESIDENT