KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 649/2022
JUDGMENT DATED: 03.04.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 124/2019 of CDRC, Palakkad)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Tattamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Tattamangalam, Chittur, Palakkad-678 102 represented by its Secretary.
(By Advs. T.K. Ajithkumar & K.T. Sidhiq)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Bhanumathi, W/o Kunhikutty, Pallathampulli, Tattamangalam Post, Palakkad-678 102.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed by the 1st opposite party in C.C. No. 124/2019 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (District Commission for short) challenging the final order dated 14.10.2022, allowing the complaint. As per the order under appeal the District Commission has directed the 1st opposite party/appellant herein to pay back the premium collected from the complainant together with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of payment till the date of repayment. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded as compensation, together with an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as costs. The respondent herein is the complainant.
2. The respondent/complainant is a member of the appellant society and beneficiary of the Kissan Credit Card Scheme. The respondent/complainant had conducted agricultural operations utilizing a loan availed from the appellant under the said scheme. In the month of October 2016, the complainant remitted the insurance premium for availing the benefits of the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme. The crops suffered damage due to adverse weather conditions and losses were caused to the complainant. According to the complainant, she was entitled to get benefits to the tune of Rs. 13,918.03 under the insurance scheme. However, it came to light that due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in remitting the insurance premium on time, the insurance company did not pay the compensation. Therefore, the respondent/complainant claimed that the appellant was liable to make good the loss. Compensation and costs were also were claimed, by filing the complaint.
3. The appellant and other opposite parties entered appearance and contested the complaint by filing versions, disputing the claim of the complainant. It was contended that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on their part as alleged by the complainant. According to the appellant, in view of Sec. 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the dispute in this case had to be referred to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, being a dispute between a society and its member. No court or other authority has any jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings with respect to such a dispute. With respect to the insurance premium, their case is that though the amount had been received from the farmers, it was due to negligence on the part of the Palakkad District Co-operative Bank Ltd. that the premium amount was not paid on time. The Palakkad District Co-operative Bank and United India Insurance Company, the insurance partner, were also necessary to be made parties to these proceedings, according to them. Since the Palakkad District Co-operative Bank did not take prompt action in the matter of paying the insurance premium, the appellant had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala by filing WP(C) No. 14913/2017 for appropriate reliefs. As the said writ petition was pending it was contended that the District Commission lacked jurisdiction.
4. The parties went to trial on the above pleadings. No oral evidence was adduced on either side. No documentary evidence was also adduced by the complainant. Exts. B1 to B4 documents were marked on the side of the appellant.
5. The District Commission heard the respective counsel and considered the matter on the merits. Placing reliance on the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court in Ext. B1 judgment, it has been held that there was negligence in payment of the insurance premium of the complainant. It has also been found that, the cheque that was finally issued was stale. Therefore, finding deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, the District Commission directed the appellant to return the insurance premium amount to the complainant with interest @ 10% from the date of remittance by the complainant, to pay a further amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as costs. It is aggrieved by the said order that this appeal is filed.
6. This appeal is posted before us for admission. We have heard the counsel for the appellant, at length. We have also considered the contentions advanced before us anxiously. The facts in this case are not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the complainant is an agriculturist and a member of the appellant society. She had availed a loan and had undertaken agricultural operations utilising the said amount. The loan was granted under the Kissan Credit Card Scheme, of which she was a beneficiary. In the month of October 2016 the complainant had remitted the insurance premium for availing the benefits of the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme. Though the complainant had suffered damage to his crop and consequent loss due to adverse weather conditions she could not get the benefit of the insurance for the reason that the amount remitted by her was not paid by the appellant to the insurance company, promptly.
7. The case of the appellant is that it was the responsibility of the Palakkad District Co-operative bank to remit insurance premium, being the nodal agency. According to the appellant, it was due to the negligence of the said bank that the premium was not remitted in time. Therefore, the Palakkad District Co-operative bank as well as United India Insurance Company were necessary parties to the complaint. In their absence complaint ought to have been dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also contended that Sec. 69 of the Co-operative societies Act bars the jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the complaint made by the respondent.
8. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a Central enactment. It has been provided under Sec. 100 of the above Act that “the provisions thereof shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force”. Therefore, we are not satisfied that Sec. 69 has any impact on the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since the Palakkad District Co-operative Bank and the Insurance Company were not made parties. The District Commission has considered the said contention and has found that non-joinder of the said parties would not vitiate the proceedings, since what was under consideration was only whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank. The said finding is correct and is therefore, confirmed.
9. The District Commission has considered the allegation regarding deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, elaborately. Since it is not in dispute that the insurance premium had been remitted by the complainant/respondent to the appellant bank, it was the duty of the bank to have paid the insurance premium to the insurance company. The omission to do so has denied to the respondent the benefit of the insurance cover for his crop. As a result, when damage was caused to the crops by bad weather, she was not able to claim the insurance amount. Thus, prejudice has been caused to the complainant by the conduct of the appellant which amounts to deficiency in service. The District Commission has therefore rightly held that the appellant was liable to compensate the respondent. However, the District Commission has been cautious to hold that it was not possible to direct the appellant to compensate the respondent for all the damage caused to her crops. What has been granted is only a limited relief, namely, to return the insurance premium to the respondent with interest thereon from the date of remittance. A compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 3,000/- have also been granted. The compensation granted is only reasonable. The costs ordered to be paid also cannot be considered to be excessive.
In the above state of affairs, we do not find any grounds to admit this appeal or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. For the above reasons, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
