Complainant/s:           1. Raviraja S/o Veerappa Durgada,

                                            Age:44 Years, Occ: Advocate & Agriculture,

                                            R/o Suranagi, Taluk:Lakshmeshwara,

                                            District: Gadag.

                                            (Rep. by Sri.M.B. Nadagoudra, Advocate)   

V/s

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA .C.H. PRESIDENT:

        This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

           2.  The above complaint filed by the complainant, stating that he had sowed Jowar crop in 2016-17 in his lands and insured for the Rabi Season yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Bank.

            3.    The averments of the complaint in brief are:

                   That the complainant has sowed the Jowar crop in 2016-17 in his respective lands bearing sy. No.348/*/2P1 measuring 5-00 Acres, sy.No.413/*/2P1 measuring 3-39 Acres and sy.No.220/*/* measuring  3-36 Acres situated at Suranagi village and insured the said crop with OP No.1 for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.2,422.28 in 2016-17 under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.1,61,485-20 through OP No.3.  The said crop was good and healthy and the complainant hoped that the he would get good yield from the above said crops for the said year.  It is further submitted that, unlikely, the crop failed due to shortfall of rain. The crops of the complainant were good and healthy and was growing well.  The year 2016-17 was hit by draughts, due to of lack of rainfall, the whole crops of the complainants were ruined and complainants became unhappy.  The complainants expected to receive the compensation for the total loss of the said Rabi season crop.  The policy coverage in case of any natural calamities/disasters to the crops of insured person/farmers, the policy safeguards under such calamities and on this assurance and encouragement, the complainants have purchased the policy to the said year and eagerly waited to receive the crop insurance compensation for the total loss of the crops under the said scheme by all the OPs, but the complainants have not received the compensation amount till today. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs on 14.02.2020 calling upon them to pay the compensation, but till today the OPs have not replied for the same. The cause of action for this complaint arose on 14.02.2020 when the complainants got issued notice to the OPs.   Hence, there is deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay the total loss and damages of the crops with interest @ 18% p.m from the date of payment of premium amount till payment, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship etc., and court expenses.

        4.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Commission, the OP No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsels.  OP No.3 appeared in person and filed a letter stating that, they have not disputed about the payment of insurance amount.  OP No.2 filed written version. OP No.1 failed to file written version.

                   The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.2:-

1. The OP No.1 contended that Complaint of complainant is not maintainable both in law and also on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 
2. It is further submitted that, the contents of para 2 and 3 are false and the same is to be proved by the complainant.
3. The contents of para 4 are that, this OP has not received any premium amount from the complainant under PMFBY and this OP has not made any assurance with regard to payment of insurance amount to the complainant.   
4. The complainant is not the consumer of this OP and there is no contract of agreement between the complainant and these OPs that of seller and the buyer.  This OP made as parties unnecessarily and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.

     5.  The complainant No.1 filed Chief affidavit along with 16 documents.  On the other hand, OPs have not filed their Chief Affidavit/s and documents. 

    COMPLAINANTS FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

          6.      On pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainant and OPs, the following points arises for our consideration:-

                    1.       Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency                      in service on the part of the OPs and entitled to any relief as                            averred in the complaint?

                    2.       What Order?

     7.       Our findings to the above points are:-

Point No. 1:  Negative                  

Point No. 2:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

           8.  POINT NO.1:  The Complainants have filed this Complaint against the OPs for claiming crop insurance amount for the Rabi season 2016-17 on failure of weather stating that, they have not received the claim amount from the OPs as per the sum assured. 

          9.       The complainants have sowed the Jowar crops in 2016-17 in his respective lands bearing sy. No.348/*/2P1 measuring 5-00 Acres, sy.No.413/*/2P1 measuring 3-39 Acres and sy.No.220/*/* measuring 3-36 Acres situated at Suranagi village and insured the said crop with OP No.1 for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.2,422.28 in 2016-17 under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.1,61,485-20 through OP No.3.  Due to shortfall of rain, the crop was failed and the complainants sustained complete loss.  Therefore, they approached the OPs claiming insurance amount, but the OPs failed to heed the request of the complainants. 

          10.     On-going through the records on file, it is an undisputed fact that complainant/s have insured their crops with OP No.1 through OP No.3 and it is also undisputed fact that they have received the premium amount from the complainant/s.  But the complainant has not produced any supporting document to show that, there was a less rainfall in the particular area and the particular season.  Hence, this Commission comes to the conclusion that, the complainant/s have failed to prove that, the OPs have made deficiency in service on their part.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in Negative.      

          11.  POINT NO. 2: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaint filed by the complainant/s is dismissed. In the result, we pass the following: 

//O R D E R//

1. The above Complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

        2.  Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 29^th day of July, 2021)

         (Shri B.S.Keri)                             (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

            MEMBER                                                PRESIDENT