Complaints filed on: 02-11-2018, 03-11-2018

22-11-2018, 01-12-2018

and 23-01-2019

                                                      Disposed on: 19-12-2020

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.120/2018 to CC.No.127/2018

CC.No.136/2018, CC.No.137/2018, CC.No.139/2018

CC.No.140/2018, CC.No.147/2018, CC.No.196/2018

CC.No.199/2018, CC.No.201/2018, CC.No.204/2018

CC.No.206/2018, CC.No.207/2018, CC.No.212/2018, CC.No.213/2018, CC.No.214/2018,CC.No.216/2018, CC.No.218/2018, CC.No.237/2018, CC.No.241/2018, CC.No.242/2018, CC.No.246/2018 and CC.No.10/2019

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

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.120/2018

Veerakyathappa

S/o K.N.Kyatappa

Major,

R/at Karekyatanahalli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

2. CC.No.121/2018

Veeranagappa

S/o Nagappa

Major,

R/at Karekyatanahalli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

3. CC.No.122/2018

Doddaraju

S/o Hanumappa

Major,

R/at Karekyatanahalli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

4. CC.No.123/2018

Chikkanna

S/o Hanumanthappa

R/at Karekyatanahalli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

5. CC.No.124/2018

Eranna

S/o Muddanna

R/at Ragalahalli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

6. CC.No.125/2018

Vaddagiriyamma

W/o Naganna

Major, 

R/at Ragalahalli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

7.  CC.No.126/2018

R.K.Nagaraju

S/o Karegowda

R/at Ragalahalli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district 

8. CC.No.127/2018

K.Krishnappa

S/o Kalappa

R/at Karekyatanahalli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

9. CC.No.136/2018

Ramachandrappa

S/o Veerakyathappa

Aged about 60 years

R/at Karekyatanahalli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

10. CC.No.137/2018

Ramalingappa

S/o Chikkanna

Aged about 60 years

R/at Karekyatanahalli,

Hulikunte hobli, Sira taluk, Tumkur district

11. CC.No.139/2018

Doddanna

S/o Mariyanna

Aged about 67 years

Dead by LRs Veerakyathappa

R/at Karekyatanahalli,

Hulikunte hobli, Sira taluk, Tumkur district

12. CC.No.140/2018

H.G.Ramakrishnappa

S/o Giriyanna,

59 years,

R/at Huligere village,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

13. CC.No.147/2018

Kamanna

S/ Katanna

Major

R/at Chikkabanagere,

Hulikunte hobli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

14. CC.No.196/2018

Suma w/o Govindaraju

Major, R/at Poojara Muddenahalli village,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

15. CC.No.199/2018

Mariyanna

S/o Puttaiah,

50 years, 

R/at Kotta,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

16. CC.No.201/2018

K.Lakshmappa

S/o Eranna

45 years

R/at Kalla halli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

17. CC.No.204/2018

Thimmakka

W/o late H.Junjaiah,

65 years

R/at K.Rangana halli Sira taluk, Tumkur district

18. CC.No.206/2018

Bheemanna

S/o Hanumanthappa

Dead by LRs son Chandrappa

S/o Bheemanna, Major 

R/at Muddenahalli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

19. CC.No.207/2018

R.Nagaraju

S/o Rangashyamanna,

55 years,

R/at Rangapura Hatti,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

20. CC.No.212/2018

Shivaramaiah

S/o Thipperamanna,

55 years,

R/at Naduru village,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

21. CC.No.213/2018

Buddappa

S/o Mudalappa

Major, 

R/at Chirata halli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

22. CC.No.214/2018

Krishnappa

S/o Karechikkanna

Major, 59 years

R/at Naduru village,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

23. CC.No.216/2018

Shivaraju

S/o Ramanna

Aged about 49 years  

R/at Panchagana halli,

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

24. CC.No.218/2018

K.V.Nagaraju

S/o Veerakyathegowda,

45 years, Major, 

R/at Kalla halli, 

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

25. CC.No.237/2018

M.Veeranagappa

S/o Muddanna

65 years, Major,  

R/at Kalla halli, 

Sira taluk, Tumkur district

26. CC.No.241/2018

Narasimhaiah

S/o Naganna

Dead by LRs son Harsha

45 years,

R/at Kalla halli, Sira taluk, Tumkur district

27. CC.No.242/2018

Nagaraju

S/o Kyathappa

Major, 45 years

R/at Kalla halli, Sira taluk, Tumkur district

28. CC.No.246/2018

K.M.Kumargowda

S/o Mallanna, Major

45 years

R/at Kereyagala halli (GH), Sira taluk, Tumkur district

29. CC.No.10/2019

B.Halagundegowda

S/o B.K.Bheemegowda, 56 years, Baraguru,

Hulikunte 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)

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

2. The Manager,

Canara Bank,

Baragur Branch,

Madaluru branch,

Hunase halli branch

Manangi branch &

Pattanayakanahalli branch

Sira taluk, Tumakuru district

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

CC.No.127/2018, CC.No.136/2018

CC.No.241/2018, CC.No.242/2018

CC.No.246/2018

2. The Manager,

Karnataka Bank

Sira branch,

Sira taluk, Tumakuru district

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

CC.No.147/2018,

2. The Manager,

Kaveri Grameena Bank,

Doddahulikunte branch,

Sira taluk, Tumakuru district

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

CC.No.237/2018

2. The Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank

Sira Town branch,

Sira taluk, Tumakuru district

(OP No.2-by Sri.M.S.Harish Babu-                   Advocate)

CC.No.147/2018,

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

Bengaluru 

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

COMMON ORDER

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

These complaints are filed by the farmers 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 all the cases and the complainants/farmers have paid crop insurance premium through their bankers i.e. Canara Bank, Karnataka Bank, Kaveri Grameena Bank and Indian Overseas Bank. The relief claimed in all the complaints against the OPs is same 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 averred by the complainants that they have sustained loss in the pomegranate, Areca nut and ground nut crop due to adverse/extreme weather condition during the year 2016-2017. The OPs have failed to respond to the repeated request to the complainants to pay the insured amount. Hence, these complaints.

5. The particulars of premium paid by the complainants and compensation amount paid by the Insurance Company is in the following table;

          6. The OPs-Insurer and Bankers have appeared through their learned counsels and resisted the 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 by not paying the insured amount. 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 crop raised in their land. Most of the complainants have insured their pomegranate crop except the complainant in CC.No.124/2018, CC.No.125/2018, CC.No.140/2018, CC.No.147/2018 and CC.No.216/2018 these complainants have insured the ground nut and Arecanut crops. The bankers have taken defence that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider since the insurer being their customer as such they have sent the insurance amount to the insurer 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 along with documents issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka with regard to drought prevailed in some taluks of the State during the year 2016-17. On behalf of the insurer its Senior Executive Mr.Ramesh.P filed their 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 complainants in most of the cases.

          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 bank i.e. Sri.Jagadeeshappa. In addition to oral arguments Sri.M.C.Prabhu representing the Karnataka bank and Kaveri Grameena Bank submitted written brief and the learned counsel for the complainants also submitted written brief in some of the cases 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 urged 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 compensation which is less than the premium amount paid by them. As against this the learned counsels for OPs have vehemently argued 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 crop 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 the 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 submitted that as per data uploaded by the concerned authority the amount is released by the authority and in turn the amount sent by the insurer to the bank which has credited to the account of beneficiaries/complainants.

          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 crop loss insurance amount to their bank account from which they have paid the insurance premium and withdrawing the said amount paid by the insurer. The banks have produced account extract of complainants and on perusal of these account extracts we may found entry with regard to credit of the crop loss insurance compensation amount in the month of December, 2017 and January, 2018. Most of the cases filed in the month of November, 2018 and December, 2018 and CC.No.10/2019 filed in the month of January, 2019. The complainants though they have withdrawn the insurance compensation amount credited to their bank account have not whispered in the complaints. It is simply averred in the complaints that they have sustained loss of crop due to adverse weather during the year 2016-17. Though the complainants have withdrawn the crop compensation amount before filing the complaints even then they have not whispered in the complaints.  On the contrary made false averments that the insurer and banks have not paid crop insurance compensation. 

15. The complainants further averred in the complaints that they have approached the insurer and banks number of time and requested him in writing. None of the complainants have produced any request letter or notice sent to the insurance company for payment of crop insurance amount. Already observed the OPs have filled in crop insurance compensation 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 complainants account even then they have suppressed the material fact in the complaints with regard to receipt of crop insurance compensation amount for loss of crop during the year 2016-17. In case 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. Any one of the complainants have not whispered in the complaints or affidavit evidence that the OPs have paid the any amount for less crop insurance compensation 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 proceeding 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.  In most of the complaints it is pleaded that the complainants have raised the ground nut and tur 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 except one complainant rest of the twenty five complainants have insured pomegranate crop for the year 2016-17.

17. The proposal form filled by the complainants and Samrakshne portal of State Government indicates that except the complainants in CC.No.124/2018, CC.No.125/2018, CC.No.140/2018, CC.No.147/2018 and CC.No.216/2018 rest of the complainants have insured the pomegranate crop for the year 2016-17.

18. The learned counsel for the complainants have produced the documents during the course of arguments issued by the Revenue department and Horticulture department of Government of Karnataka for the year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The learned counsel for the complainants produced only Ex-P5 annexure-1 details of Crop loss due to Dry spell during Khariff-2016 rest of the documents are pertaining to the year 2017-18 and 2018-19. The same learned counsel has produced documents issued by the Horticulture department which was taken under the RTI Act in CC.No.98/2018 and copy of Ex-P2 and Ex-9 of that CC.No.98/2018 have taken for disposal of these cases. Under Ex-P2 the Government of Karnataka has issued notification No.RD 259 TNR 2017 Bengaluru dated 6-10-2016. According to this notification 68 taluks out of 22 districts in State have declared as drought except the irrigated area in which Sira taluk of Tumakuru district is one of the taluk drought declared by the State Government for the year 2016-17. The complainants in these cases own land at Karekyathanahalli, Ragala halli, Boppanadu, Chikkahulikunte, Poojaramuddana halli, Kotta, Kalla halli, Ranganahalli, Rangapura, Naduru, Chirathahalli, Belavadi and Baraguru. Ex-P9 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 of Tumakuru district. The villages where the complainants own lands have raised pomegranate crop is not appeared in Ex-P9 except the village Naduru, Kotta and Baraguru for the year 2016-17. The complainant in CC.No.199/2018 own land Sy.No.393/3A at Kotta village. The complainant in CC.No.212/18 own land Sy.No.389/3 at Naduru and CC.No.214/2018 the complainant own land Sy.No.272/2C and 272/2D at Naduru and the complainant in CC.No.10/2019 own land Sy.No.114 at Baraguru village.

19. In Ex-P9 the Nodal officer under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) scheme have assessed the loss of pomegranate crop at Rs.4200=00 per hector (i.e.2-47 acres), Baraguru and Kotta for Rs.37500=00 per hector. The complainant in C.No.199/2018 own land at Kotta insured three acres pomegranate crop and insurer has paid Rs.45528.00 as compensation. The complainant in CC.No.10/2019 who is own land Sy.No.114 at Baraguru insured five acres of pomegranate crop grown in five acres  of land and insurer has paid Rs.75881.00. The amount paid by the insurer to the complainant own land at Baraguru and Kotta is in accordance with the EX-P9 loss fixed by the Nodal officer at the rate of Rs.37500.00 per hector. On the same line the insurer as paid compensation to the complainant in CC.No.212/2018 and CC.No.214/2018 who own land at Naduru.

20. The complainant in CC.No.140/2018 own land Sy.No.44/3 at Boppanadu village who raised Arecanut in area of two acres nine guntas and the complainant in CC.No.216/2018 own land Sy.No.65/8 and Sy.No.65/9 total measuring four acres wherein he has raised Arecanut crop. The name of village of the complainants not appeared in Ex.P9 to show that they have sustained loss in crop even then the insurer has paid Rs.112537=00 to the complainant in CCNo.140/2018 and Rs.160444=00 to the complainant in CC.No.216/2018 for loss in Arecanut crop during the year 2018-17.

21. The complainants have produced Ex.P5 in CC.No.196/2018 which is annexure-1 details of crop loss due to dry spell during Khariff-2016-17. This document is issued by the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Sira taluk, Tumakuru district. According to this during the year 2016-17 the farmers of Sira taluk has assessed 33% crop loss  in CC.No.124/2018 and CC.No.125/2018 the complainants have insured the ground nut crop a sum of Rs.60705=00 and Rs,53,420=00. The insurer has paid Rs.10423=00 and Rs.21576=00 as compensation for loss of ground nut crops during the Khariff-2016-17. The compensation amount paid by the insurer is more than 23% of the insured amount. Though the complainants have not averred in the complaint with regard to improper assessment made for loss of crop by the authority and payment made by the insurer but the insurer has paid the correct amount as per the own document produced by the complainants. The complainants have suppressed the fact of payment of compensation amount for the loss of crop during the year 2016-17 and receipt of the same have come with the false allegation in the complaints that the OPs have not responded to their repeated requests and demands as already observed that the complainants have not produced any documents for approaching the OPs for nonpayment of crop loss compensation. In view of the foregoing 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.

Place the original order in CC.No.120/2018 and copy of order in CC.No.121/2018 to CC.No.127/2018, CC.No.136/2018, CC.No.137/2018, CC.No.139/2018, CC.No.140/2018, CC.No.147/2018, CC.No.196/2018, CC.No.199/2018, CC.No.201/2018, CC.No.204/2018, CC.No.206/2018, CC.No.207/2018, CC.No.212/2018, CC.No.213/2018, CC.No.214/2018, CC.No.216/2018, CC.No.218/2018, CC.No.237/2018, CC.No.241/2018, CC.No.242/2018, CC.No.246/2018 and CC.No.10/2019