Karnataka

Davangere

CC/13/2017

Sri.Gnaneshappa s/o Rudrappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

1) Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

G.M.T.Patel

20 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DAVANAGERE           

 

 

CC.Nos.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 & 51 of 2017   

 

DATED THIS THE  20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

      PRESENT:

 

 

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR,                         PRESIDENT

SMT. JYOTI RADESH JEMBAGI                  MEMBER

 

Complainants in	CC-10/2017 Sri.Malatheshappa, S/o. Gurubasappa, Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC.11/2017 Smt.Mallamma W/o. Hanumagowda, Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-12/2017 Sri.Shekarappa, S/o. Basappa, Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-13/2017 Sri.Jnaneshwarappa S/o Rudrappa, Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-14/2017 Sri.Sharadamma, W/o. Lokeshwarappa,  Age: Major, Guddehalli/Hosakoppa Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-15/2017 Smt.Gangamma W/o. Kotrappa, Age: Major, Hosakoppa Vilage, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-16/2017 Sri.K.Nagappa, S/o. Hanumappa. Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.

 

	CC-17/2017 Sri.Parameshwarappa, S/o. Channabasappa,                       Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-18/2017 Sri.K.Siddesappa S/o Parameshwarappa, Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-19/2017 Sri.Hanumanthappa S/o Channappa, Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-20/2017 Sri.Rudrappa S/o. Channabasappa, Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-21/2017 Sri.Nagendrappa, S/o. Mallappa, Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-22/2017 Sri.Veeranagowda, S/o. Mahadevappa, Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-23/2017 Smt.Thimmamma, W/o Veerabasappa, Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-24/2017 Smt.Hanumanthamma W/o. Eshwarappa, Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-25/2017 Sri.Shanmukhappa, S/o. Siddappa, Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-26/2017 Smt.Basamma, W/o. Siddappa, Age: Major, Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-27/2017 Sri.G.Nagarajappa S/o. Eshwarappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-28/2017 Sri.Nagarajappa, S/o. Hanumanthappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-29/2017 Sri.Shivarudrappa, S/o Veerabasappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-30/2017 Sri.Chandrappa, S/o. Mahadevappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-31/2017 Sri.M.Rudrappa, S/o Siddappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-32/2017 Sri.Shanthamma, W/o Hanumanthappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-33/2017 Sri.Nagaraja, S/o Guttidoddappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-34/2017 Smt.Rathnamma, W/o. Karibasappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-35/2017 Sri.Haladappa, S/o. Doddappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-36/2017 Sri.G.Basavarajappa, S/o. Shivarudrappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-37/2017 Sri.Hanumagouda, S/o. Shivarudrappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-38/2017 Smt.Rathnamma, W/o. Malleshappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-39/2017 Sri.Channabasappa, S/o. Theerthappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-40/2017 Sri.H.K.Ramappa, S/o. Paarappa, By Rept. LR’s Theerthappa, S/o Ramappa, Age: Major, R/o:Hosakoppa/Kullehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-41/2017 Sri.Hanumagouda, S/o. Sankappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-42/2017 Smt. Deveeramma, W/o. Rudrappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-43/2017 Smt.Rudramma, W/o. Veerappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-44/2017 Sri.G.Basavarajappa, S/o Hanumanthappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-45/2017 Sri.Shivanagouda S/o. Basavanyappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-46/2017 Smt.Sakamma, W/o. Hanumanthappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-47/2017 Sri.Rudrappa, W/o. Hanumanthappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-48/2017 Sri.Parameshwarappa, S/o. Basappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-49/2017 Sri.Rudrappa, S/o. Siddappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
	CC-50/2017 Sri.Thirthalingappa, S/o. Basappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
All the complainants by Sri. G.M.T.Patel Adv.	CC-51/2017 Sri.M.Lokeshwarappa, S/o. Mahadevappa, Age: Major, R/o:Guddehalli Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk.
Opposite parties:                   Common in all the                      above cases	Common Opposite parties   1. The Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, No.7/4, 32, P.C.A. and R.D Bank Building, Kuvempu Road, K.B.Extension, Davangere.   (By Sri. A.M.Veerabhadrappa, Adv.)     2. The Manager, Davangere District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, No.311, “A” Block, Sri. D.Devaraj Urs Extension, P.B.Raod, Davangere.   (By Sri. Timmalapurada Ravi Shankar, Adv.)     3. The Chief Executive Officer/President, Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara Sanga(R), Yaraganalu(H.O.) Rameshwara Village, Honnali Taluk, Davangere-Dist.   (By Sri. M.Karibasayya, Adv.)

 

 

 

BY  SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

 

 

 

:: COMMON ORDER ::

 

   Under section - 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

 

 

          2. The Complainants of all these 42 cases have been alleging the deficiency in service against all the opposite parties No.1 to 3, in not releasing their respective assessed/claimed crop insurance amount, despite issuing the common legal notice and thereby, individually they have been claiming the common reliefs against them, seeking direction from this forum, for releasing their respective Crop Insurance amount, for  their affected kharif crop of the year 2014-15, along with their respective separate expenses, interest on the said amount, compensation and litigation  charges.

                                     

 

          3. All the complainants of these 42 cases are the members of the opposite party No.3/Society (PACS) of Yaraganalu Village. All of them (3 members for groundnut crop) had deposited their respective insurance premium amount for insuring their maize crop of the year 2014-15. The said amount remitted to the opposite party No.1 was deposited with opposite party No.2/DCC Bank and thereafter it was transferred, with required documents to the opposite party No.1/Insurance Company. Subsequently, both the Government and the opposite party No.1/Insurance Company conducted the joint survey and assessed the loss of the crops in the insurance covered areas of various villages and accepted loss to the extent of 59.57% to the areas of Guddehalli and Belagutti Village and also to the crops of the complainants. The complainants of all these cases approached the opposite party No.3/(PACS) with claim papers for the insurance amount.

 

          4. The case of all the complainants in brief in common is that, in response to the demand for their respective insurance amount, the opposite party No.1 and later the opposite party No.2, gave evasive answers, in spite of written submissions made to them,  though the insurance amount was disbursed to the other Agricultural Societies of other villages. All the opposite parties had assured, but did not disburse their respective insurance amount, despite issue of the common legal notice dated:26/9/2016 and hence they were constrained to file these complaints.

 

          5. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 filed their versions separately, in all the complaints contending commonly.

 

6. The opposite party No.1 contended commonly that there is no deficiency in its service, as the claimed/declared insurance amount was already settled, on the basis of the furnished data, by depositing the same with the opposite party No.2/DCC Bank, through NEFT in /June-July/2015 itself. As per the guidelines contained in MNAI Scheme, the separate list, with all the details about the released amount of the said 42 complainants/farmers, were furnished to the opposite party No.2. There is mandate on the opposite party No.2 to disburse the released insurance amount to the concerned loanee/non-loanee farmers within 7 days, by publishing it on the notice boards of the branches and to send the copy of the compliances with utilization certificate within 15 days to the insurance company for verification and audit. The opposite party No.2 has not complied the same. If the insured farmers have not received their claims, it does not become liable to pay any compensation. Instead of proceeding against the opposite party No.2, the complainants wrongly impleaded and proceeded against insurance company, though question of deficiency in its service and in issuing reply to their legal notice did not arise. There is no cause of action against it. All the complaints are liable to be dismissed.

 

7. The opposite party No. 2 and 3 commonly contended that the insurance premium amounts of the loanee/non-loanee, including the complainants, were collected by the opposite party No.3 and deposited with the opposite party No.2 and the same was sent to the opposite party No.1. After the joint survey was conducted, the government and the opposite party-1 assessed the loss of the crop to the extent of 59.47% and the opposite party No.1 released the insurance amount to other societies but not to the opposite party-3 society, where all these 42 complainants deposited the premium amount in its favour.  Their function in making arrangement for remitting the premium amount and disbursing the amount between the complainants and the opposite party 1, only to act as mediators only and hence, there is no deficiency on their part.

 

8. The opposite party No.2 further contended commonly that the opposite party No.1 did not release the amount, to the full extent of the declared insurance amount, so as to satisfy the claims of all the complainants, which made them unable to disburse the amount and hence informed the opposite party No.1 about its helplessness.

 

9. The opposite party No.3 further contended commonly that the collected premium amounts of complainants of all the case were deposited and the claim forms were submitted through the opposite party No.2 and even by issuing letters reminded for releasing of the amount and thereby no deficiency was committed by it relating to its role in the said scheme and hence the complaints become liable to be dismissed against it.

 

10. The complainant, Maltheshappa of CC-10/2017 filed his affidavit evidence relying on Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-14 documents out of which, Ex.A-11 to Ex.A-14 relate to his personal case and Ex.A-1to Ex.A-10 relate to the complaints of all these cases. The officials of the opposite party No.1 and 2 filed their affidavit evidences.  The opposite party No.1 has relied on Ex.B-9, the statement of payments of all the insured members including the complainants, with all the details till the disbursement of the claimed/declared insurance amount.  The opposite party No.2 has relied on EX.B-1 to Ex.B-8 documents. Written arguments were filed by the complainant and opposite party No 3.

 

11. Arguments of the learned counsels for the complainant and the opposite party No 1 and 2 were heard. The written arguments of the opposite party 3 were perused. The opposite party No.1 has relied on the Government Notifications of the said insurance scheme.

 

12. The common consumer disputes that arise for consideration in all the 42 cases are as follows:

1. Whether non-disbursing of the crop insurance amount to the complainant in response to his paid premium and submitted claim form, becomes deficiency in service as alleged ?
2. If so, against whom the complainant gets right to proceed?
3. To what order the parties are entitled ?

 

   13. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Affirmative.

2. Against the opposite party No.2 only.

3) As per final order for the following

 

:: REASONS ::

14. Consumer Disputes No.1 & 2 : The undisputed facts  reveal that complaints of all these 42  complaints are the farmers of Guddehalli  and  Belagutti Villages. All of them being the non-loanees of the opposite No.3/PAC Society, paid the premium amount, for their respective declared landed properties to raise  the maize crop (among them three farmers   to raise ground nut crop).

 

 

          15. The said premium amounts were paid in favour of the opposite party No 1/insurance company under the National Crop Insurance Programme (NCIP)-Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (MNAIS). The said insurance scheme was implemented vide order dated:1/11/2013 of Ministry of Agricultural and Co-operation of Government of India, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in detail, in the produced copies of the said notifications by the opposite party No1.

 

         16. All the complainants (except the complainant Nagendrappa of CC-21/2017)  sent the common legal notice as per EX.A-10 against  all the opposite parties  No.1 to 3, through registered post, vide postal  receipt Ex.A-2 dated 23/9/2016 and they were served on all the opposite parties on 27/9/2016 vide  R.P.A.D.  Ex.A-1(a)(b)(c). In the legal notice they alleged that the opposite party-1 though released the assessed insurance amount to the other societies of the said insurance coverage area did not release amount of their respective insurance claims.

 

17. Ex.B-9 statement was furnished by the opposite party-1, in response to notice/IA dated 10/10/2017. The entries at various columns of Ex.B-9, show the names of the complainants of all these cases with their respective paid premiums and extent of the declared insured area of raising of their khariff crop.

 

18. The perusal of the letters between the opposite party-2 and opposite party-1, especially about the releasing of the insurance amount disclose that the opposite party No.1 which has prepared provisional claim sheet/EX.A-3, finally prepared the statement of the beneficiaries of the claimed insurance amount, including the complainants of all these cases vide Ex.B-9.  It shows that there is no dispute about the paid premium amount, joint survey conducted and the estimated loss of the insured crops to the extent of 59.57% as shown it Ex.A-3 statement of claim sheet.

 

19. There are no specific allegations by the complainants of all these cases about the deficiency of service of the opposite parties on other procedural aspects other than the non payment of declared insurance amount. Hence The dispute is only with regard to non disbursement of the claimed/declared insurance amount to the respective complainants of all these 42 cases. Hence there is no necessity to look in to the revenue documents or the policy particulars of each and every complainant similar to Ex.A10 to Ex.A14.

 

20. The opposite party No.3 contended commonly that the collected premium amounts of complainants of all the case were deposited with the opposite party-2 and it  is established through  its undated letter/Ex.A-6 which contained the  information that 8 farmers paid Rs.3,165/- for the insurance amount of Rs.1,58,218/- about the ground nut crops and 102 famers paid Rs.69,291/- for insured amount of Rs.34,64,555/- about the khariff maize crop  of the year 2014-15.

 

21. It is also established that the claim forms of all the complainants were submitted by the opposite party-3 through letter dated 11.8.2015 as per EX.A-8/Ex.B-1, and hence the Nyamathi Centre of DCC Bank submitted the list of the farmers with all relevant documents on 11-8-15 as per EX.A-5/Ex.B-2/Ex.B-8 and in turn the DCC Bank/ opposite party No.2 submitted the same though letter EX.B-3 dated:13/8/2015 to the opposite party No.1 insurance company.

 

22. The opposite party No.3 and the P.B. Road Branch of D.C.C. Bank though EX.A-9 letter of the same date, requested the opposite party No 2/DCC Bank to release the crop insurance amount for 23 farmers of Guddehalli about loss of maize crop and for 3 farmers of Belagutti for loss of the ground nut crop.

 

         23. No materials are placed to show at what stage the opposite party-3 has not exercised its role properly and or the other roles it had to exercise. There is no whisper as to how that above stated role amounts to deficiency in service. Thereby no deficiency can be inferred as committed by it relating to its role in the said scheme and hence all the complaints become liable to be dismissed against it.

 

24. The contention of the complainant No 1 is that it has already settled the insurance amount in June/July-2015 itself, by depositing the total amount with the list of all the beneficiaries, with the opposite party No.2, in terms of the scheme and thereby these complaints are not maintainable against it.

 

25. The opposite party No 2/DCC Bank through Ex.B-4 letter dated:19/2/2015, informed the opposite party-1 about the receipt of excess released amount Rs.47,461.50 and Rs.1,62,234.70 to Soratur and Taraganahalli societies respectively.

 

          26. The opposite party No.1/Insurance Company replied through Ex.B-5 letter dated:18/1/2016, that excess amount sent, was because of booking of  the name of farmers twice in the said Sortur, Taranahalli and Kunkava  Societies  and  intimated also stating that final outstanding claim amount of pending cases, after adjustment would be  Rs.4,72,916/- and the same would be released shortly.

 

 

          27. The opposite party No.2 through Ex.B-6 letter dated 22/1/2016 informed the opposite party No 1 that no excess amount was released to Kunkava Society and hence requested for releasing of total amount of Rs.9,11,070.30/- towards Sawalanga and the opposite party No 3 society.

 

          28. The opposite party No 1 again responded through Ex.B-7 dated 4/2/2016 as hereunder:-

   

 We had received premium amount of Rs.2,40,403/- from Kankava PACS as per Bank premium abstract and premium amount of 15 farmers from Kankava Gram Panchayat amounting to Rs.12,459 was not received by ITGI. However, we had booked premium amounting to RS.2,52,862 (Rs.2,40,403+Rs.12,459) and paid the claims as per booking. Since we have booked premium of Rs.12,459 without receipt of any premium and  released claim of Rs.3,04,040 for the same. Hence, the claim paid of Rs.3,04,040 is treated as excess claim paid to the bank, which has to be adjusted.

 

 

29. The opposite No.1 has produced the copies of the notifications/circulars of the Central Government about the MNIS scheme drawing the attention towards regulation No. 22.2(ii) which reads as hereunder:

 

After receiving the claims amount  from the concerned insurance companies, the financial institutions/banks should remit/transfer the claim amount to the account of beneficiaries (both loanee & non-loanee) on the notice board of the branch within seven days with details of beneficiaries like Name of farmers/beneficiaries,  crops  insured, sum  insured, amount of  claims received etc. and send a copy to concerned  insurance companies with utilization certificates within 15 days for further verification and  audit.

         

         30. It is also mentioned in the notification                       dated:1-11-2013 at Sl.No.15 as here under:

 

 

          COMMISSION & BANK CHARGES:

    Nodal Bank Branches shall be paid by the insurance companies, a Service Charge of 4% on the actual loanee farmer premium amount remitted by them, being in the nature of sharing the incidental management expenses incurred by them for servicing the Scheme. Insurance intermediaries, rural agents/others engaged by insurers for covering non-loanee cultivators would also be paid minimum remuneration of 4% on the actual farmer premium.

          

          31. The Opposite party-2 deposited the cheque dtd:7-10-2017 for Rs.6,82,612-00 and it was enchased and credited to the office account of this Consumer Forum on 11-10-2017. No other materials are placed by the opposite party-2 other than the above discussed Ex.B4 to Ex.B7 letter transaction and the encashed cheque.  No written arguments were also filed till the date of this final order.

 

      32. The Overall consideration of the contents of Ex.B4 to Ex.B7, encashed cheque and the terms and conditions of the scheme disclose that the opposite party-2 being the Nodal Bank branch who takes minimum remuneration of 4% on the actual farmer premium amounts, has got its obligations and responsibilities both towards the complainants and the insurance company/opposite party-1.

 

        33. Admittedly the opposite party-2 Bank acted as mediator by receiving the premium amount of the applicant and other non loanee policy holders, and transferred the same with required details to the opposite party-1.  On the basis of the particulars of the furnished data of the premium,  the opposite party-1 calculated the assessed and declared insurance amount as shown in Ex.B9 statement.   Ex.A3 statement is prepared to show the disbursement of total  insurance amount to various societies.  Ex.B9 statement shows the individual calculation of all the complainants with details of their respective insurance coverage area, date with premium amount paid by each of them and total claim   amount to be disbursed in their favour.

 

          34. The opposite party No.2 ought to have shown the error committed by the opposite party No 1 in the said statement, at least after the opposite party No 1 furnished the details of premium amount  collected from  Kankava PACS. The opposite  party No 2 has not resisted/denied the alleged excess payment made towards Soratur and Taragahalli  Society. As per Ex.B-4 letter dated 19.2.2015 itself the opposite party No 2 had received excess Rs.2,09,696.20. There is no explanation about the fate of the said excess deposited amount, about the adjustment Rs.4,72,916 mentioned in Ex.B-5 letter dated:18.1.2016 by the opposite party No 2. It appears that the opposite party No 2 without the explaining the same, added the required amount for Sawalanga Society and the opposite party No 3 society to claim Rs.9,11,070.30/-without distinguishing the amounts of the society,  as done in Ex.B-4 letter.            35. The alleged three payments by the opposite party No 1 to the opposite party No 2 in June and July 2015 through NEFT runs crores of rupees, sent based on the calculation of premium amounts. The opposite party No 2 had the responsibility to distribute the same amount to number of societies coming within its jurisdiction and no such attends were also made by the opposite party No.2.

 

         35. The materials are sufficient to show that the opposite party No 1 in terms of the relevant regulation of the Central Government, reported the compliance  even by furnishing the particulars to the opposite party No 2  and by furnishing  statement Ex.B-9 to the Consumer Forum. In the absence of the contra materials/rebuttal evidence by the opposite party.2 fault cannot be found with  opposite party No 1 about the settlement of the insurance claim. Hence the opposite party No 2 who is a mediator in between the complainants and the insurance company/opposite party No.1, should be held responsible for not explaining the things happened  in the middle of process of payment of premium amounts and the distribution of disbursed insurance amount.  Such being the case the complainants cannot be burdened with proving of the alleged non-payment targeting against the opposite party-1.  In the result there are no cogent evidence to fix the deficiency of any service against the Opposite party-1 and hence, the complaints against opposite party-1 also becomes liable to be dismissed.

 

          36. The amount was deposited earlier to EX.B-4 letter dated 19.12.2015. The opposite party No.2 did not determine the actual amount to be received from the opposite party-1 by taking appropriate steps in settlement of disbursed amount, and did not pay the amount either to the complainants or returned it to the opposite party No.1 and thereby for no valid reason kept the amount with it till it was credited to Consumer Forum Account on 10-11-2017 and that act itself amounts to violation of the term No 22.2(ii)  of Regulation of the scheme and not the act that can be expected from the Consumer Forum.  The Role of the opposite party-2 inbetween the complainants and the opposite party-1 gets the remuneration at 4% of the premium amount.  After accepting the said role the opposite party-2 has not established how it has played its role in settlement of the disbursed insurance amount.  Thereby it has to be held that the opposite party-2 has committed the deficiency of service in not calculating/disbursing the released insurance amount of the opposite party-1.    

 

          37. Thereby the above stated facts clearly show that, the complainants of all these 42 cases though paid the premium amount and submitted the claim forms to get the insurance amount after the loss of the crop was surveyed and assessed as per the policy schedule through opposite party-3 society,  did not get the released insurance amount of opposite party-1 through opposite party-2.  The opposite party-3 did its act as mediator, the opposite party-1 in terms of policy conditions and the terms of Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (MNAIS) released the insurance amount as per the data furnished by the opposite party-2 and hence, their roles cannot be considered as suffered from imperfection.  Hence, non-disbursing of the insurance amount to the complainants of all the cases becomes deficiency in service.  The said deficiency is with the opposite party-2 only and thereby the complainants of all these cases get right to proceed only against opposite party-2. Accordingly the consumer dispute No.1 is answered in the Affirmative and consumer dispute No.2 is answered infavour of the against the opposite party-2.

 

         38. Consumer dispute No.3: The complainants in all these 42 cases have sought for the released crop insurance of their 2014-15 Karif crop released by the opposite party-1.  It is not their case that the calculated amount is incorrect and if it becomes so their remedy in these complaints.  Hence, the released amount of the opposite party-1 in terms of calculation based on paid premium amount have to be disbursed by the opposite party-2 to the complainants.  The said amount where is from about Rs. 7,000/- to Rs.48,000/- based on the extent of the land/paid premium amount and the said insured amount are not established in these cases.   Hence, the prayer is made by all the complainants for released the insurance amount without mentioned the amount alongwith the compensation damages with litigation charges.  

 

         39. The damages and compensation cannot be fixed, for all the cases by mentioned the quantum of the amount.  The litigation charges can be fixed to all these cases because of their equal contribution in bearing the charges.  Hence, in order to meet the ends of justice compensation and damages can be fixed to the extent of 25% of their released insurance amount by the opposite party-1.   Regarding the litigation charges the parties are visiting Consumer Forum at Davangere from taluk level of Honnali and thereby the litigation charges becomes reasonable it fix at Rs.10,000-00. 

 

        40. The opposite party-2 is at liberty to take back the deposited the cheque amount dtd:7-10-2017/11-10-2017 from the Consumer Forum Account.  In the result the complainants in all these cases deserve to get the following:

 

:O R D E R :

 

Complaints No.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 & 51 of 2017  are dismissed against the opposite party-1/insurance company & opposite party-3/Yaraganalu Society and allowed against the opposite party-2/D.C.C Bank.

 

  The opposite party-2/DCC Bank of all the complaints No.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 & 51 of 2017 is directed to pay the released crop insurance amount of the opposite party-1 in favour of the complainants of these cases within 30 days in default to pay the same with interest thereon at 12% p.a. till realization.

 

         The opposite party-2/DCC Bank is also directed to pay the compensation to all the complainants at the rate of 25 % of the released insurance amount.

 

The opposite party-2/DCC Bank is also directed to pay the litigation charges of Rs.10,000/- each to all the complainants.

 

         This order shall form part of record in CC-No.10/2017 and the copies of the same shall be kept in the remaining complaint records.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 20^th Day of November 2017).

 

 

 

JYOTHI RADESH JEMBAGI                 MEMBER

H.Y VASANTH KUMAR                         PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

 

Ex-A1(a)(b)(c)	Postal acknowledgments
Ex-A2(a)(b)(c)	Postal receipts
Ex-A3	Copy of provisional claim sheet of MNAIS Kharif 2014 Implemented by IFCO Tokio Ltd
Ex-A4&5	Copy of Government order No ACD/45/AMS/2014 , Bangalore dated 13/5/2014
Ex-A6	Notice copy
Ex-A7	Copy of Vima Policy  dated 13/8/2014
Ex-A7 to A9	Copy of the sanction letter dtd:05.12.2006 from HDFC
Ex-A10	Copy of Notice  dated 26/9/2016
Ex-A11&12	Copy of RTC Form.
Ex-A13	Copy of receipt of Prathamika Sahakari Sanga Niyamitha, Yaraganalu.
Ex-A14	Copy of Ahdar  Card of Mahadevappa, (Complainant)

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party.

 

Ex-B1	Copy of letter of opposite party 1 and 2 dated 11.8.2015
Ex-B2	Copy of listing sheet of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (MANIS)
Ex-B3	Copy of the letter of opposite party No 2 to opposite party No 1 dated 13.8.2015
Ex-B4	Copy of the letter of  opposite party No 2 written to  opposite party No.1 dated 19.2.2015
Ex-B5	Copy of the letter of  opposite party No 2  dated 18.01.2015
Ex-B6	Copy of the letter of opposite party No 2 dated 22.01.2016
Ex-B7	Copy of the  letter of opposite party No 1 dated 04.02.2016 to opposite party No.2
Ex-B8	Copy of the letter of opposite party No 3
Ex-B9	Copy of NEFT Details with formers account and loss details with insured survey No.

 

 

JYOTHI RADESH JEMBAGI                 MEMBER

H.Y VASANTH KUMAR                         PRESIDENT