Orissa

Rayagada

CC/146/2015

Sri Sriram Murthy Subudhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Indian Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                                               C.C. Case  No.146/ 2015

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.,                                    Member

Sri Sriram Murthy Subudhi S/o late Laxminarayana Subudhi, Resident of Derigam,Via: Ukumba, P.S.Gudari, Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                                              …….Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. Branch Manager,Indian Bank, Gunupur.
2. Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd.,87 Satya Nagar,Bhubaneswar-751007.    
3. Regional Manager,I ndian Bank, Bhubaneswar.                                                                                                                                                        …..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: Self

For the O.P 1 & 3:  Sri Ganapatia Rao and Associates, Advocate, Gunupur.

For the OP 2: Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumundan,Advocate,Rayagada.

                                                                           JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that the  complainant  has availed loan of aRs.1,00,000/-  on 26.08.2011 from OP 1  and a sum of Rs.2500/- was deducted from his account for the purpose of insurance of the crops and it was duly remitted to the OP 2 and the  Rayagada district was declared  as draught hit area  and due to loss of paddy crops the complainant is entitled to get the reimbursement  as an indemnity of such loss.  The complainant has cleared  all the balance amount of OP 1  and asked the OP 1  to indemnify the loss sustained by him due to such draught but the OP 1  has not taken any steps to indemnify the loss. The loss of the crop  RS.2,25,000/-  and claims compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony  and demand the cost of litigation and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper. Hence, this complaint.

                        Being noticed by this forum the opposite parties  appeared and  filed   written version  inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. It is submitted by the OP 1 & 3 that  the insurance policy was issued for all the crop  loans availed during  that period from the OP 1 and the OP 2  implementing the Rastriya Krishi Bima Yojana on behalf of the Central Govt. and State Govt.  from Rabi Season 1999-2000 on wards and the farmers availed loan from the  banks  and other financial institutions compulsorily covered  .  The premium is deducted from the loan account of the farmers and sent to the OP 2 year wise by OP1.  The complainant has availed crop loan from the OP 1  for the relevant period and also covered the crop insurance through OP 2. The complainant was  having lands  in the Mouza Balipanga vide Khata No.3/6 of Derigam GP and by  inadvertences in the insurance particulars it was mentioned as Ukamba GP instead of Derigam GP and for the relevant year there was draught and as per the Govt. statistics collected , the complainant  was eligible for a sum of Rs.42,789.62 though insured for RS.1,00,000/- for the crop. Due to mistake in mentioning the GP the complainant was not compensated by the OP 2. The OP 1 immediately on knowing the mistake  and also on representation by the complainant made additional claim for kharif  2011 and 2012 to the OP 2 through the Nodal Bank. The OP 1 also sent the revised declaration in the proper forms under the guidelines.   The additional claims if any made is to be decided/approved  by the committee of the Central Govt. constituted under the scheme and now the case of the complainant  is with the committee of the Central Govt. and the amount of compensation will be credited by the OP 1 on clearance by the committee and there is no role of the Bank in setting the  claim/ insurance. The contract of insurance is between the complainant and insurance company and this OP 1 & 3  are nowhere in the picture of the said contract, hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                        The OP 2 submitted that  after due verification of the documents they requested the Co-op Dept. Govt. of Odisha to give their consent to bear their share of claims towards the  additional claims  for the petitioner and  the State Govt.  has given their consent  vide their Office letter NO.8569 dt.12.11.2014  and after receiving the consent, the OP 2 forwarded the matter to the Govt. of India additional claims committee for their approval . As per the Office Memorandum No.12012/01/2010-Credit-II dt.08.11.2010  of  Deptt of Agaril & Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India, Committee constituted for settlement of additional claims under NAIS  to approve or disaapprove  the additional claim. Now the matter    is under the consideration of the said committee if the  Committee approve the additional claims, then after receiving the State Govt. and Central Govt. share of  claims the OP 2 will settle the claims  of the petitioner and if the committee disapprove the additional claims, than  as per the Scheme Provision, the bank will settle the admissible claims to the farmer. In view of the above there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the OP 2 and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint  against the OP 2.

                                                            F I N D I N G S

                        We have perused the records, hearted arguments from both the parties at length. Now the issues for determination arises for consideration of this Forum  are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer of the Ops ?
2. Whether the consumer forum has jurisdiction to entertain this dispute ?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service rendered by the Ops ?
4. To what relief ?

Issue No.1.

                        The complainant has taken loan, opened pass book and paid insurance premium for the purpose of crop insurance to the OP 2 through the O.p 1. Again the Hon’ble National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a case titled as Smt.Kalawati and others Vrs M/s United Vaish Cooperative  Threft and Credit Society Limited held that  “ We are also not in agreement with the view  of the state commission and , a member can not be a consumer vis-a vis the society in which he is a member” Hence it can safely be said that the complainant is a consumer of the OP.

Issue No.2

                        It is settle position of law as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Secretary, Tiru Murugan Cooperative Agriculture Credit Society versus M.Lalitha (dead) through LRS and others reported in 2004(I) Sec.305 that Cooperative Society Act held, does not oust jurisdiction of consumer forum to adjudicate upon dispute between the members and the  Bank and Insurance Company. As such this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute.

Issue No.3

                        As regards to this issue  that is deficiency ins service on the part of the OP is concerned we have perused the case records, gone through the complaints, counter version of the OPs and  documents and papers presented by both the parties. We have also heard the arguments from the learned counsel for the parties. The grievance of the complainant  is that he has availed agriculture paddy loan  for kharif season for the year  2011 from the opposite party NO.1  and the said crop loan was  insured by the OP 2 Insurance Company. Due to the draught the crop were damaged and the complainant claimed insurance from the above Ops but  his claim was repudiated . In support of his claim the complainant  has filed the notification of draught declaration. Hence, he took shelter before this forum by invoking the Section 12 of Consumer Protection Acat,1986. On the other hand the Opposite Party contended in their counter version that the claims of the complainant was repudiated due to mistake in monitoring the G.P in the application. The OP 1 also sent the revised  declaration in the proper form under the guidelines.

                        Admittedly the insured crops do pertain to the kharif 2011 and the crops raised by the complainant in their respective lands as kharif crop for that year as paddy crop.

                        The National Agriculture Insurance Scheme  provides indemnity  based on yield date, scientifically ascertained by crop cutting experiments. If the actual average yield of a notified crop in a notified area is less then “threshold yield” for the area, all the concerned farmers whose crop loans have been insured will became eligible for compensation only up to the sum insured. If there is no shortfall in the wield no farmer will get any claim. The complainant placing reliance upon the notification of the government of Odisha in the department of Revenue and Disaster Management. We have gone through the prayers provided by the complainant  there was failure  the paddy crop on account of severe drought in their locality. But due to the small mistake in monitoring  the G.P  the complainant was not compensated.

                        The Hon’ble Apex Commission for Consumer In FA No.362/06 titled as “Agriculture Insurance Company India Limited Vrs. The Farmers Cooperative Society” in a similar case held that “ In our view such scheme re to be made flexible and not to rigid so that the benefit of the welfare scheme  reaches the concerned persons and the objects of the scheme is not frustrated”.

                        What we mean to say is absolutely there is no convincing evidence on record to infer that, the guidelines laid down in the said scheme were meticulously followed by the opposite parties.

                        From that view of the matter, we have come to the conclusion that the Ops are remained deficient in rendering services to the complainant within the purview of the C.P.Act.

Issue No.4

                        In the light of our above observation, what best this forum can do. The Ops are directed to pursue the additional claims submitted before the committee of the Central Government. The Committee of the Central Govt. constituted under the scheme is ordered to settle the matter with a reasonable  time and to  be more specific within two months and the Ops compensate the poor farmer after clearance by the committee and close the  loan and also pay Rs.6,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.

                                                                        ORDER

                        The Ops are directed to pursue the additional claims submitted before the committee of the Central Government. The Committee of the Central Govt. constituted under the scheme is ordered to settle the matter with a reasonable  time and to  be more specific within two months and the Ops compensate the poor farmer after clearance by the committee and close the  loan and also pay Rs.6,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.

                        Send a copy  of order to the Central Committee through the OP 1.

                        With these observations and directions this complaint petition id disposed off accordingly.

                        Let a copy of this order be made available to the parties free of cost as per statutory requirements.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 30^th   day of December,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                       

 

 

                       Member                                                                                                President