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.08/2007 Between: B.Narasaiah S/o Pullaiah Agriculturist, r/o Pothireddipalli (V) Putlur Mandal, Anantapur District. …. Complainant Vs. Andhra Pragati Grameena Bank (Sree Anantha Grameena Bank) rep. by its Branch Manager Putlur (V) & (M) Anantapur District. … Opposite Party This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri M.Manohar Naidu, advocate for the complainant and Sri K.L.N.Prasad, Advocate for the opposite party 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.15,000/- towards compensation for loss of crop and Rs.2,000/- 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 opposite party issuing of crop loans, insured the crops and collecting crop insurance premium from agriculturists. The opposite party changed its name as Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank instead of Sree Anantha Grameena Bank. It is further stated that the complainant approached the opposite party with an application for crop loan to his lands in Sy.Nos.1027 extent Acs.2.16 cents, 953-F – Acs.1.77 cents, 960-A – Acs.0.47 cents, 1023-A – Acs.2.15 cents, 1018-A – Acs.2.19 cents and total extent of Acs.8.74 cents. The complainant complied the Bank formalities for obtaining loan and deposited title deeds. Accordingly, the opposite party-Bank after satisfying the formalities, sanctioned the loan under Crop Insurance Scheme for Rs.30,000/- for year 2005-06. The loan amount and its premium are debited to Savings Bank Account of the complainant bearing No.4390. It is stated that the opposite party informed him that in case of failure of crop, the Insurance amount will be paid as per the direction of the State Government. He also furnished No Due Certificate to the opposite party prior to sanctioning of the loan. It is further submitted that the Groundnut crop raised by him was failed due to act of God and the same was brought to the notice of the opposite party and requested to pay crop insurance amount. The opposite party informed him to wait for one month for payment of insurance amount. The Govt. of A.P. announced crop loss compensation @ 46%. But the opposite party did not pay the amount even after one month and stated that there was some computer mistake and informed him to wait for one more month. The opposite party paid the insurance amount to the neighbouring land owners of the same Village of the complainant. He approached the opposite party on 20-11-2006, but the opposite party has not paid any amount and as such he suffered mental agony and that the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.2,000/- for mental agony. As there is deficiency of service committed by the opposite party in not paying Insurance amount towards loss of crop, he is liable to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation. Thus, the case of the complainant. 3. The 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 opposite-party-Bank and got the crop insured. It is incorrect to state that the opposite party-Bank changed its name as Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank instead of Sree Anantha Grameena Bank. In fact, three Grameena Banks sponsored by Syndicate Bank in the State of Andhra Pradesh amalgamated into a single Rural Reserve Bank by the Central Government as per the notification dt.01-06-2006 and therefore the three Rural Reserve Banks ceased to exist, but to continue to function in the new name “Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank” with its Head Office at Kadapa, but not other-wise stated in the complaint. It is a fact that the complainant availed loan facility from the opposite party-Bank. The opposite party is not admitting that the complainant has complied with Bank formalities and depositing his title deed for crop loan. It is incorrect to state that the crop was insured and if there is loss or damage to the crop, the same will be paid to the complainant as per procedure, regarding loss of crop insurance amount will be paid by the Bank. In fact, as per the rules, the Government has declared 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 46% of loss of crop as per proceeding dt.02-05-2006 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 party states that it acted bonafidely and the crop insurance amount collected/debited from 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 and 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 when the opposite party-Bank came to know about the mistake crept on record, the opposite party through its Regional Office 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 party submits 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, 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 is no latches on the part of the opposite party-Bank and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party-Bank. It is incorrect to state 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. It is incorrect to state that the Bank informed to the complainant that the crop insurance can not be paid due to computer mistake. Hence, to dismiss the complaint with costs. 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 party ? 6. Ex.A1 to A4 are marked for the complainants and no documents are marked for the opposite party. Ex.A1 is Xerox copy of Loan Pass Book Account No.4390 issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ex.A2 is the Xerox copy of Pattadar Pass Book issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Putlur and counter-signed by Village Revenue Officer, Sanagalagudur in favour of the complainant. Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy of the adangal extract issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Sanagalaguduru. Ex.A4 is the Xerox copy of crop loss compensation published in Eenadu Newspaper, Anantapur edition dt.05-04-2006. 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 opposite party-Bank for crop loan. The complainant in order to satisfy the formalities of the Bank for grant of crop loan, produced Ex.A2 Pattadar Pass Book relating to the lands possessed by him and Ex.A3 adangal extract. After satisfying the formalities, the opposite party-Bank granted crop loan and issued crop loan Pass Book under Ex.A1. 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 opposite party-Bank for crop insurance amount, but the 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 opposite party contended that the Regional Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Regional Office, Anantapur addressed a letter dt.09-09-2006 to the Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., Hyderabad. The opposite party also contended that Deputy Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., Hyderabad addressed a letter dt.06-10-2006 to the Regional Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Anantapur. The Senior Manager (Credit), Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Regional Office, Anantapur addressed a letter dt.01-11-2006 to the Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., Hyderabad. Hence, the said correspondence as contended by the opposite party goes to show 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 party is claiming that there are no latches or deficiency of service on their part. The proceedings on record goes to show that whatever the 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. 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. The contention of the opposite party is that the revised bills are still pending and that the Bank has not utilized the amount and hence there is no deficiency of service. 10. The contention of the 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 party. 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 party vehemently contended that the Insurance Premium was received from the complainant for crop insurance and the 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; but letter of Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., that if necessary they may depute their officials for verification of basic records. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that Insurance Company is not a necessary and proper party in this case. His further contention is that the opposite party clearly admitted in their letter of Sri Raghuveera Reddy, Agricultural Minister, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh that some errors were committed in feeding Villages , while debiting the crop insurance , hence the opposite party acted under deficiency of service negligently, hence liable for the same and there is no necessary and there is no need to add Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., Hyderabad as party and no relief is claimed against them and no direct contract with the said company with the complainant and hence not a proper and necessary party to this case. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions reported in (1) 2005 S.A.R. (Supreme Appeal Report) (Civil) page 500 (2) 2005 Digest of S.A.R. 2005 on order 1 rule 10 cited in the decision AIR 2005 S.C. page 2813 and 2007 (5) A.L.T. page 798. 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 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 party has also filed petition on the file of this Forum stating 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 party 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. The decisions relied on by the counsel for the complainant as mentioned supra, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 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 PARTY: NIL EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS Ex.A1 - Xerox copy of Loan Pass Book Account No.4390 issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ex.A2 - Xerox copy of Pattadar Pass Book issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Putlur and counter-signed by Village Revenue Officer, Sanagalagudur in favour of the complainant. Ex.A3 - Xerox copy of the adangal extract issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Sanagalaguduru. Ex.A4 - Xerox copy of crop loss compensation published in Eenadu Newspaper, Anantapur edition dt.05-04-2006. EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY - N I L – Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR Typed by JPNN
......................Smt.S.Lalitha
......................Sri S.Chinnaiah | |
