Karnataka

Kolar

CC/7/2018

Sri.Ramakrishnappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompu General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

10 Aug 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 23/01/2018

Date of Order: 10/08/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 10^th DAY OF AUGUST 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 07 OF 2018

Sri. Ramakrishnappa,

S/o. Late Channappa,

Aged About 76 Years,

Gopenahalli Village,

Vengasandra Post,

Bangarpet Taluk.

Kolar District.                                                         ….  COMPLAINANT.

(In-person)

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

Universal Sompo General Insurance

Company, K.V. Samrat Building,

Kasthuri Nagara, Bangalore.

(Rep. by Sri. B. Kumar, Advocate)

 

2) The Deputy Director,

Agriculture Department,

D.C. Office Premises,

Kolar.

(In-person)

 

3) The Manager,

State Bank Of India,

Sundarapalya Branch,

KGF Taluk Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri.Kusuma Krishnamurthy, Advocate)                    …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant in-person having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of directions to Ops to pay claim amount of Rs.24,815=70 and compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, being an agriculturist under the reference of OP No.2 he had availed crop insurance under “Pradana Mantri Fasal Bhima Yojane” for the Peanuts and bean crop grown in the land bearing Sy. No.36/3 situated at Rayasandra Village, during 2016-2017 premium amount of Rs.346/- for peanut crop and Rs.112-26 for bean crop towards the said insurance was paid at OP No.3 Bank.

 

(b)    And during the said period since there was no rain in Kolar District he had lossed the crop.  So he approached Ops for several times for insurance claim, since they did not reply he issued notice to OP Nos.1 & 2 on 20.11.2017, but all went in vain.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint by seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued by this Forum, Ops have put in their appearance and submitted their written version.

(a)    The contention of OP No.1 is that, there is no cause of action to file this complaint since the complainant has not issued or given any notice to this OP and mainly contended as, as per the complainant’s application No.793971 raised by State Bank of Mysore the same has been deleted in Samrakshne Portal.  The said farmer is not insured by this OP so this OP is not liable to pay any claim.  So contending this OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

(b)    The contention of OP No.2 is that, as per the letter dated: 08.02.2018 this OP has come forward to raise its objections through the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bangarpet.  The complainant has wrongly impleaded this OP as a party to this proceedings and this OP No.2 is in no way concern to this proceedings.  The allegations made in the complaint that, the complainant has issued notice dated: 20.11.2017 through post is totally false.  The allegation made in the complaint that, the complainant has paid premium amount in the OP No.3 Bank to avail insurance for peanuts crop is admitted, but on verification of samrakshane Portal through website it is found that, the complainant’s application No.793971 was deleted.  There is no deficiency in service of this OP.  Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

(c)    The contention of OP No.3 is that, the Government has offered for insurance of crop under Prime Minister Fasal Bhema Scheme.  The complainant has insured for Sy. Nos.36/3 situated at Rayasandra for Horse gram only and did not insured for ground nut to an extent of 01 acres 38 guntas under application No.141257.  Accordingly this OP No.3 has visited the land of the complainant and collected the premium amount and the same was sent to OP No.1 (insurance company).  The case is only between the complainant and OP Nos.1 & 2 and it is for the OP No.1 the insurance company to verify the same under and this OP is not necessary to send any further particulars to OP No.1.  In view of the same there is no deficiency in service of this OP thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

04.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and also submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i) Two Copies of Notice

(ii) Two copies of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy No.36/3

(iii) Two copies of Insurance & Proposer Data.

(iv) Copy of pass book issued by SBM, Sundarapalya Branch.

(v) Copy of photograph

(vi) Copy of Bank statement

 

05.   One Sri. Vinay Kumar.M, Executive of OP No.1 has sworn the affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.1 by way of examination-in-chief and below mentioned documents were filed:-

(i) Operational guidelines Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojan.

 

(ii) Letter from Insurance company to the Department of Horticulture, State Level Banking Committee, dated: 01.12.2017 for not having entered in Samrakshane portal.

 

(iii) Proceedings of PMFBY dt. 23.08.2017 regarding bank issue and errors.

 

(iv) Proceedings of review meeting of crop insurance held under the chairmanship of secretary for agriculture dt.14.12.2017 discussion regarding bank related issue.

 

(v) Letter dt. 14.09.2017 Bulk transfer of NEFT rejected.

 

(vi) Letter dt.19.12.2017 seeking clarification for the applications enrolled after cut-off date.

 

(vii) Copy of Samrakshane NIC portal.

 

 

06.   OP No.2 did not filed its affidavit evidence, but however it has submitted following documents:-

(i) Letter dated: 08.02.2018 issued by Joint Director of Agriculture, Kolar.

(ii) Copy of Notice along with copy of complaint issued by this office to OP No.2

(iii) Six Copies generated from Samrakshne portal NIC pertaining to complainant.

 

 

07.   One Sri. J.Sandeep, S/o. J.Veeraiah, Manager of OP No.3 Bank has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief on behalf of OP No.3 along with following documents:-

(i) View proposal

(ii) Copy of Samrakshane

 

08.   Heard arguments of complainant and the learned counsel appearing for OP Nos.1 & 3.

 

09.   Now the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

POINT NO.1:-   Is there cause of action to file this complaint?

 

POINT NO.2:-   Is there jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the complaint?

 

POINT NO.3:-   What order?

 

10.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1):-      In the Affirmative

 

POINT (2):-      In the Negative

 

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS (1) & (2):-

11.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

(a)    The OP No.1 has contended that, there is no cause of action to file this complaint because the complainant has not issued any notice to this OP No.1.  On perusal of pleadings of complainant this complainant has clearly pleaded as, he approached Ops several times by requesting Ops to settle the claim, when these Ops have not responded the complainant along with other farmers also approached District Commissioner, Kolar.  There also he did not get any positive response, hence he approached this Forum.

 

(b)    On perusal of the records, this complainant is an illiterate farmer.  Therefore we hold the pleadings of complainant is sustainable because we cannot expect any documentary evidence for his visit to Ops because of his illiteracy.  Moreover consumer Forum mainly follows the natural justice and other documents of complainant is admitted by the Ops and also complied the claim of insurance.  Therefore from the above discussion we come to conclusion that, there is an cause of action to file this complaint.

 

(c)    The OP No.1 in its version has contended that, in Para-26 of its version it has been contended that, as per the application of the complainant bearing No. 793971 it is deleted in the Samrakshane portal so this OP is not liable to pay any claim to that effect.  The screen shot of Samrakshana Portal also mentioned in the version and it reveals that his application is deleted. 

 

(d)    On perusal of entire records of the case the copy of Samrakshana portal submitted by this complainant also reveals that, his proposal No.793971 is deleted during 30.07.2016 itself.

 

(e)    Therefore when the application itself is deleted to know why the said application is deleted we lack jurisdiction to probe in to this matter and as there is no claim of complainant exists with these Ops he will not be consider as Consumer.  Hence we hold that, we lack jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

 

POINT (3):-

12.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) & (2) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 10^th DAY OF AUGUST 2018)

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT