IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of August, 2009
Filed on 02.04.07
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.68/07
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.Ouseph Devasia, 1. State Bank of Travancore,
Valiyaparambil House, Rep by its Branch Manager,
Pandy.P.O., SBT Payippad – ADB 7092,
Karuvatta (Via), Harippad, Alappuzha Dist.
Alappuzha Dist. (By Adv.Chandrasekharan Nair)
(By Adv.George Mathew)
2. The Regional Manager,
The Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd.,
Kerala Regional Office TC-14-1765
Ground Floor, Bakery Jn., Thiruvananthapuram.
3. State Bank of Travancore,
Regional Office, Ernakulam.
(By Adv.C.Muraleedharan)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainants’ case is as follows: - The complainant is a paddy cultivator of Cheruthana Village. The complainant, in May 2005 availed a crop loan amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) from the State Bank of India, Payippadu Branch under Kisan Credit Card Scheme. At the time of availing the loan, the bank collected the premium of Crop Insurance of the said year from the complainant. The responsibility of so collecting premiums for insurance scheme virtually lies with the Bank. As such, the premium of the Insurance was being so collected by the bank from time to time. By the way in 2005, the crop in Cheruthana village sustained widespread failure. With the result, the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. in 2006 declared 90% insurance benefit to the aggrieved farmers. The bank is liable to pay the sanctioned insurance amount to the complainant. The complainant on umpteen occasions unsuccessfully demanded the insurance amount from the 1st opposite party. The complainant is entitled to recover the entire insurance amount of Rs.9,000/-(Rupees nine thousand only) with 18% 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.
1. On notice being sent the opposite parties turned up, and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd opposite parties 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, and the same had been sent to the 3rd opposite party along with declaration, the 1st opposite party contends. The 3rd opposite party contends that the premium amount so sent by the 1st opposite party was duly forwarded to the 2nd opposite party. According to the opposite parties, the complainant never sustained any sort of crop loss as complainant alleged. The complainant never approached the said opposite party for any claim. According to the 2nd opposite party, the complainant preferred a claim for Khariff crop of 2005. The payment of premium was effected for Rabi II crop. The complainant has no case that he sustained crop loss during Rabi II season. 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.
2. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, and no documents were marked. On the side of the opposite parties the 1st opposite party was examined as RW1, and the documents Exbts. B1 to B4 were marked. The 3rd opposite party was examined as RW2, and Exbts. B5 and B6 were marked. The 2nd opposite party was examined as RW3, and the documents Exbts. B7 to B11 were marked.
3. 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?
4. We meticulously perused the pleadings, affidavit and the other documents brought on record by the parties. The crux of the complainant's contentions is that the complainant sustained crop failure in the year 2005. The opposite parties are liable to pay the insurance amount of Rs.9,000/-(Rupees nine thousand 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 allegation of the complainant as to crop failure is contrary to 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. On a meticulous perusal of the materials available on record, it is revealed that the complainant preferred a policy claim for Khariff crop. However, Exbt. B1 suggests that the premium for the policy was remitted for Rabi II crop. Significantly, it appears that the complainant has no case that he sustained any sort of crop failure during the Rabi II season. It is worthwhile to notice that all the opposite parties flagrantly disputed the complainant's claim of crop loss. According to them the complainant never countenanced any kind of crop- failure. In the context of the opposite parties brazen dispute as to crop failure, and 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.
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 - Ouseph Devasia (Witness)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - R.Prabhakaran Pillai (Witness)
RW2 - Narayanan Adiyodi.K (Witness)
RW3 - Rajesh.D (Witness)
Ext. B1 - The copy of the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme Declaration Form dated,
25.05.2005
Ext. B2 - The copy of the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme Declaration Form dated,
30.11.05
Ext. B3 - The copy of the Ledger Extract Dated, 01.09.07
Ext. B4 - The copy of t Crop Insurance Premium Recovered Register Page No.63 for the
month of May, 2005
Ext. B5 - The copy of the Certificate dated, 15.06.09
Ext. B6 - The copy of the Letters Outward Register of SBT
Ext. B7 - The copy of the Government Order with Fax Message (5 Pages)
Ext. B8 - The copy of the Letter from the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation (22
Pages) dated, 16.07.95
Ext. B9 - The copy of the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme Declaration Form
Ext. B10 - The copy of the Letter from the Directorate of Economic and Statistics dated,
31.01.06 (3 Pages)
Ext. B11 - The copy of the General Insurance Corporation of India National Agricultural
Insurance Scheme dated, 08.02.07
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- P.R/-
Compared by:-
