DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR PRESENT:- Sri S.Chinnaiah, B.A., B.L., President Smt.S.Lalitha, M.A., M.L., Lady Member Monday, the 30th day of June,2008 C.C.No.100/2007 Between: S.Narasimhulu S/o Subbaiah Agriculturist, r/o Muthuvakuntla (V) Kanaganapalli Mandal, Anantpaur District. …. Complainant Vs. 1. Andhra Pragati Grameena Bank rep. by its Branch Manager Main Road, Kanaganapalli Anantapur District. 2. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pragati Grameena Bank Regional Office, Opposite Z.P. Office Anantapur. … Opposite Parties This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri G.Venkatesulu, advocate for the complainant and Sri B.Nagalingam, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following: ORDER (Per Sri S.Chinnaiah, Hon’ble President) 1. This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for loss of crop with interest @ 12% p.a. from 28-06-2005 and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, future interest and costs of the complaint. 2. The contents of the complaint in brief are that the complainant is depending on agriculture. The complainant has taken crop loan by depositing title deeds i.e. Patta No.269 in Sy.No.193-2A extent Acs.6.87 cents, 193-7E – Acs.1.32 cents, 194-1D – Acs.0.92 cents and 194-1G – Acs.1.23 cents on 28-06-2005 for Rs.72,670/- for Groundnut Crop Kharif Season. The complainant had repaid crop loan of Rs.79,770/- on 20-06-2006. The crop loan was covered crop insurance. The 1st opposite party had collected premium of Rs.2,450/-. The Groundnut crop totally failed due to severe drought condition. Hence, the Insurance Company declared crop insurance of 50% for the year 2005 Kharif Season. Accordingly, the 1st opposite party should pay 50% amount out of crop loan amount of Rs.72,670/-. The complainant orally approached the 1st opposite party on several occasions, but the 1st opposite party postponed on one pretext or the other. Finally, the complainant got issued legal notice on 18-03-2007 and the same was served on the 1st opposite party. The complainant was regularly taking the crop loan and repaying the same since 5 years. The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for crop loss and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and legal expenses. Thus, the case of the complainant. 3. The 1st opposite party filed a counter opposing the contents of the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the allegations as mentioned in the complaint. It is a fact that the complainant had availed crop loan from the 1st opposite-party-Bank and got the crop insured. In fact, as per the rules, the Government has to declare the percentage of loss of crop and the Insurance Company has to pay the said amount to the Bank for crediting the same to borrowers account. It is incorrect to state that the crop was failed due to act of God. The Government declared 50% of loss of crop as per proceedings is not admitted and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. In fact, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Insurance Company is not made as necessary and proper party to this case and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. If the Insurance Company is made as party, the reason for non-payment would have been found and rectified. In fact, as per Insurance Contract, if there is loss of crop as declared by the Government, the company has to pay compensation but not by the Bank. The opposite parties state that it acted bonafidely and the crop insurance amount collected/debited to the complainant’s account paid to the crop Insurance Company. There are no latches on the part of the opposite party-Bank and while preparing the co-related list of the borrowers and his Village, some mistake occurred and the name of the Village, where the land situated is not mentioned, but the Village where the complainant is residing was mentioned. As since the compensation has been declared basing on Village level, there was some delay in settlement of insurance claim, which is not intentional. Therefore, due to human error in feeding the particulars of crop insurance to computer resulted in non-payment of declared compensation and immediately and when the 1st opposite party-Bank came to know about the mistake crept on record, the 1st opposite party through its Regional Office i.e. 2nd opposite party requested the crop insurance authorities to rectify the mistake in the data particulars of Village since the Insurance is payable Village-wise but previously it was the Mandal unit for declaring the loss of crop. In fact, the opposite parties submit that the crop insurance office of Hyderabad in turn sought for the permission to rectify the data and to pay the amount and the proceedings are pending before the Head Office at New Delhi etc., Soon after obtaining permission and amount, the same will be credited to the complainant’s account and there are no latches on the part of the opposite party-Bank and therefore no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party-Bank. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated whatever amount debited from the account of the borrower is paid to the Insurance Company, by the opposite party-Bank and there is no deviation or non payment of the said amount to the crop Insurance Company and on this point there are no latches on the part of the opposite parties and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It is incorrect to state that the Bank had been postponing the payment of declared insurance amount. There are no bonafidies in the present complaint. It is incorrect to state that the Bank officials informed the complainant to wait for one month to get crop loss compensation. There is no cause of action to file the complaint. It is stated that the entire amount debited from loan account of the complainant under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme has been sent to their Regional Office, Anantapur and the Regional office, Anantapur in turn sent the said amount in favour of the Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Hyderabad to the address mentioned. The data information sent to the agriculture Insurance Company had been rectified and sent their claim through Regional Office, which is pending with Agriculture Insurance Company, Hyderabad and the same is not been rejected. The said claim is pending for process of consideration. Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., represented by Regional Manager is proper and necessary party in this case and without the said company, the case can not be decided on merits. The address of the proposed party is as follows: “ Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Regional Office, 8th floor, United India Towers, Basheer Bagh Hyderabad -500 029. Hence, to dismiss the complaint with costs. The 2nd opposite party filed adoption memo adopting the counter of the 1st opposite party. 4. Heard arguments both sides. 5. The point that arises for consideration herein is: Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ? 6. Ex.A1 to A7 are marked for the complainants and no documents are marked for the opposite parties. Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of Pattadar Pass Book issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanaganapalli in favour of the complainant. Ex.A2 is Xerox copy of Bank Pass Book Account No.3424 issued by the 1st opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy of Sree Anantha Kissan Credit Card issued by Sree Anantha Grameena Bank, Kanaganapalli. Ex.A4 is Xerox copy of Loan Renewal Receipt issued by Sree Anantha Grameena Banki, Kanaganapalli Branch dt.28-06-2005. Ex.A5 is the Xerox copy of Bank Statement issued by Sree Anantha Grameena Bank, Anantapur. Ex.A6 is the office copy of legal notice dt.18-03-2007 issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ex.A7 is the adangal (property particulars) of S.Narasimhulu for Fasli 1415-1416 issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Murthavakuntla Village, Kanaganapalli Mandal. 7. We have gone through the contents of the complaint, counter, affidavits, written arguments, documents and the relevant material available on record. 8. POINT:- It is a simple case. The complainant is an agriculturist and he approached the 1st opposite party-Bank for crop loan. The complainant in order to satisfy the formalities of the Bank for grant of crop loan, produced Ex.A1 Pattadar Pass Book relating to the lands possessed by him and Ex.A7 adangal extract. After satisfying the formalities, the 1st opposite party-Bank granted crop loan and issued crop loan Pass Book under Ex.A2. Hence, the crop was insured and insurance premium was received from the complainant for the crop insurance. The contention of the complainant is that the crop was failed due to act of God and he approached the 1st opposite party-Bank for crop insurance amount, but the 1st opposite party postponed the same stating that some computer mistake was occurred in feeding the particulars and the amount will be paid after obtaining the amount from the Insurance Company. 9. The proceedings on record goes to show that the Bank has acted bonafidely and crop insurance premium amount collected/debited to the complainant’s account paid to the Insurance Company. On this aspect, there are no latches on the part of the Bank. While preparing co-related list of borrowers and his Village, some mistake crept with regard to name of the Village where the land is situated, is not mentioned but the Village where the complainant residing is mentioned. It is to be stated that as the complainant has been declared basing on the Village level, there was some delay in settlement of insurance amount, resulted in non-payment of declared compensation immediately when the Bank came to know about the mistake crept on record. As seen from the records, the Bank requested the crop insurance authorities to rectify the mistake by submitting the relevant particulars as insurance, is payable Village-wise. The 1st opposite party contended that through the 2nd opposite party requested the Insurance Authorities to rectify the mistake by submitting relevant particulars as the insurance is payable Village-wise. The 1st opposite party contended that there was some mistake in mentioning the location of lands and subsequently the same was rectified and after obtaining permission, the amount will be settled and credited to the complainant’s account. The opposite parties are claiming that there are no latches or deficiency of service on their part. The opposite parties contended that whatever the amount debited from the account of the borrower is paid to the Insurance Company by the 1st opposite party-Bank and there is no deviation or non-payment of the said amount to the Crop Insurance Company. It is to be stated that the name of the Village where the lands are situated are wrongly noted by the Bank while feeding in the computer. After knowing the said fact, the mistake was rectified. Hence, under the circumstances prevailed herein, there is no misappropriation of the amount collected towards crop insurance and the same was sent to the concerned Insurance Company. 10. The contention of the 1st opposite party is that the amount collected from the complainant towards crop insurance premium was sent to the Insurance Company and the same was received. When once the amount is sent to the Insurance Company in bulk, the claim is not repudiated and the claim is pre-mature. Hence, under the circumstances, it can not be said that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 11. As seen from the record, the entire amount debited to the loan account of the complainant under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme has been sent to the Regional Office, Anantapur and the Regional Office in turn sent the said amount to the Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., Hyderabad. The data information sent to the Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., has been rectified and sent the claim to the Regional Office, which is pending with the Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., Hyderabad, the same is not been rejected. The claim is pending for process for consideration and hence the Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., Hyderabad represented by the Regional Manager is proper and necessary party in this case. Without impleading the said Company as party, the case can not be decided on merits. 12. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank relied on the decision reported in I (2007) C.P.J. 128 (NC). The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties vehemently contended that the Insurance Premium was received from the complainant for crop insurance and the 1st opposite party clearly admitted that some mistake was happened in feeding the particulars of borrowers and clearly admits that the amount will be credited to the complainant’s account when received the amount. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that Insurance Company is not necessary and proper party in this case. 13. After going through the rival contentions, we are satisfied that the contention of the complainant is not convincing. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the opposite party-Bank collected insurance premium and sent the same to the Insurance Company. It is a fact that there was some discrepancy in feeding the particulars of the lands by the opposite party-Bank in computer and subsequently the same was rectified. However, the defect was rectified and the amount was sent to the Insurance Company, relating to the complainant and the amount is intact. As the crop insurance amount was sent to the Insurance Company, the same has to be paid by the Insurance Company. The 1st opposite party has collected the amount and sent the same to the Insurance Company. The data information sent to the Agricultural Regional Office, which is pending with the Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., Hyderabad, the same is not been rejected. The said claim is pending for process for consideration. If that is so, the Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., represented by its Regional Manager is proper and necessary party in this case. 14. The opposite parties contended that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper party, which is “Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., represented by its Regional Manager, Hyderabad. “ The decision relied on by the opposite parties on this aspect as mentioned supra is amply applicable to the present case. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as the data information was sent to the Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., and the same has been rectified and sent the claim to the Regional Office, which is pending with Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., Hyderabad, the said insurance company is proper and necessary party to decide the matter on merits. Hence, without impleading the said company as party, we are of the opinion that the case can not be decided on merits. Hence, under the circumstances, we hold that Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., represented by its Regional Manager is proper and necessary party in this case and without impleading the said company as party, the case can not be decided on merits. Hence, under the circumstances prevailed herein we see that no substance in the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of “ Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., Hyderabad “ as necessary and proper party. Under the circumstances, we direct both parties to bear their own costs. 16. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 30th day of June, 2008. Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANTS: NIL OPPOSITE PARTIES: NIL EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT Ex.A1 - Xerox copy of Pattadar Pass Book issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanaganapalli in favour of the complainant. Ex.A2 - Xerox copy of Bank Pass Book Account No.3424 issued by the 1st opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ex.A3 - Xerox copy of Sree Anantha Kissan Credit Card issued by Sree Anantha Grameena Bank, Kanaganapalli. Ex.A4 - Xerox copy of Loan Renewal Receipt issued by Sree Anantha Grameena Banki, Kanaganapalli Branch dt.28-06-2005. Ex.A5 - Xerox copy of Bank Statement issued by Sree Anantha Grameena Bank, Anantapur. Ex.A6 - Office copy of legal notice dt.18-03-2007 issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ex.A7 - Adangal (Property particulars) of S.Narasimhulu for Fasli 1415- 1416 issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Murthavakuntla Village, Kanaganapalli Mandal. EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES - NIL – Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR Typed by JPNN
......................Smt.S.Lalitha
......................Sri S.Chinnaiah | | 
