IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of August, 2009
Filed on 18.10.2006
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.233//06
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Promod K. Sebastian 1. State Bank of India
Karukaparambil House Represented by its Branch
Pandy P.O., Karuvatta (Via) Manager, Edathua ADB 3034
Cheruthana Village, Alappuzha Dt. (By Adv. C. Parameswaran)
(By Adv. George Mathew)
2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of
New Address:- India Ltd., Represented by its
Regional Manager, Kerala
C/o. K.J .Sebastian Regional Office, TC-14-1765, Kaukaparambil House Ground Floor, Bakery Junction
Madathumbhagam North P.O. Thiruvananthapuram
Puramattom, Thiruvalla (By Adv. C. Muraleedharan)
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant is a paddy cultivator of Cheruthana Village. The complainant, in 2003-04 availed a crop loan amount of Rs 18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) from the State Bank of India, Edathuva Branch under Kisan Credit card Scheme. At the time of availing the loan, the bank collected the premium from the complainant towards Crop Insurance Scheme. The responsibility of so collecting premiums for insurance scheme virtually lies with the Bank. By the way, consequent to saline water intrusion and draught in 2003, the crop in Cheruthana village sustained widespread crop failure. With the result, the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. in 2005 declared 55% insurance benefit to the aggrieved farmers. The bank is liable to pay the sanctioned insurance amount to the complainant. The complainant on umpteen occasions demanded the insurance amount from the 1st opposite party in vain. The complainant is entitled to recover the entire insurance amount of Rs.9900/-(Rupees nine thousand nine hundred only) with 12% interest from the opposite parties. The opposite parties' repudiation of complainant's claim amounts to out-and-out negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being sent the opposite parties turned up, and filed separate version. The opposite parties contend that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. The complaint is time barred, and on that score alone the complaint is to be dismissed, the opposite party aver. The obligation for remitting the crop insurance premium is exactly with the complainant. However, in the instant case, the 1st opposite party collected the said premium from the complainant. But the same is not collected on behalf of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme which announced insurance benefit for crop failure. The complainant has availed loan under the Kisan Credit Card scheme, and hence is absolutely out side the purview of the National Agricultural insurance scheme and its programs, the opposite party asserts. According to the opposite parties, the complainant got hold of a good harvest, and never sustained any sort of crop loss as complainant alleged. The complainant never lodged any claim with the opposite parties. The complaint is mere experimental to wangle illegal enrichment. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties assert.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PWl, and the documents Exts. Al and A2 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties its Manager was examined as RWl, and the documents Exts. Bl to B3 were marked. 4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions come up for consideration before us are:-
(a) Whether the complainant is a consumer as envisaged by law?
(b) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
(c) Whether the complainant sustained any crop loss?
5. We meticulously perused the pleadings, affidavit and the other documents brought in evidence by the parties. The crux of the complainant's contentions is that the complainant sustained crop failure in the year 2003-04. The opposite parties are liable to pay the insurance amount of Rs.9900/- (Rupees nine thousand and nine hundred only) to the complainant, yet the claim of the complainant was repudiated. To counter the complainant case, the opposite parties, at the threshold of the proceedings itself take up the contentions that the complainant is not a consumer, the claim of the complainant is barred by limitation and the alleged crop failure is contrary to the real facts. However, it appears that the opposite parties do not pursue the first two contentions seriously or let in any evidence that support or substantiate the said contentions. The counsel for the opposite parties fervently argued that the complainant contention of yield collapse is a mere story cooked up to contrive illegal enrichment. Keeping in view the contention of the counsel, we carefully read the documents placed on record by the complainant to further his case. With view to fortify the complainant case of crop failure, the complainant appears to have produced Ext A2 document. Even on a closer perusal of Ext A2, it is only unfurled that the Cheruthana Village has sustained crop failure in 2003-04. To put it otherwise, Ext A2 is inconsequential as to the specific issue whether the complainant has sustained injury with respect of his yield. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence to show specifically that the complainant sustained crop loss, we regret, we are unable to accept the complainant case. It goes without saying that the case of the complainant does not merit acceptance.
6. For the forgoing reasons, the complaint stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear with their own costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2009.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Promod K. Sebastian (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the leaf-let
Ext.A2 - Copy of the Proceedings of Commissioner of Land Revenue
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - P.V. Davis (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Order of Agriculture (AGRI) Department (Attested true copy
of the original document)
Ext.B2 - Copy of the letter to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of all
States/UTs (Attested true copy of the original document)
Ext.B3 - Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers (Attested true copy of the original document)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
