Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/224/2010

THE SECRETARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

E. KANNAN - Opp.Party(s)

V. MANOHARAN

09 Nov 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                     PRESIDENT

                   TMT. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                                     MEMBER                                                                                                                  

F.A.No.224/2010

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.15/2009, dated17,02.2010 on the file of the District Commission, Perambular) 

  THE 09^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021.

 

1.    The Secretary,

       R – 950, Primary Agricultral Co-operative Bank,

       Nerkundram.

 

2.    The Special Officer (Cp-operative Bank),

       Nerkundram Co-operaive Bank,

       District Joint Registrar Office,

       Perambular.                                                                                                            Appellants/Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                       Vs –

 

1.    E.  Kannan, (Deceased).   

       S/o.  Illayaperumal.

 

2.    Vasantha, W/o.  E. Kannan.

 

3.    K. Suresh,k S/o. E. Kannan.

 

4.    Uma  Magesware, W/o. KuraliKrishnan.

 

5.    Perumalammal, Mother of E. Kannan.                                                                                  Respondents/complainants      

Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties    :  M/s. V. Manoharan,  Advocate.     

Counsel for the Respondents /Opposite Parties:  M/s. S.R.P. Panneerselvam, Advocate.     

          This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 26.10.2021 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE  THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.   

1.      This appeal has been preferred under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Commission, Perambalur made in C.C.No.15/2009, dated 17.02.2010, allowing the complaint filed by the complainant, respondent herein.      

2.      For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Perambalur (In short “District Commission”).              

3.        The factual background culminating into this appeal is as follows;- The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he had availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- from the opposite parties, agricultural co-operative bank,   At the time of granting loan, a sum of Rs.1250/-was deducted from the loan amount by the opposite parties towards the premium amount for crop insurance. Subsequently, due to heavy flood, cotton crops grown in the field of the complainant had been totally destroyed. Since there was an insurance policy coverage, the complainant had sent a letter dated 29.05.2009 to waive the loan amount and adjust the insurance amount towards loan obtained by him.  The 1^st opposite party has not considered the request of the complainant and hence the complainant has come forward with the consumer complaint before the District Commission claiming a direction to the opposite parties to waive the loan and to adjust the same towards his loan and also to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service committed by them and the mental agony suffered by the complainant and also for costs. 

4.     Opposing the averments made in the complaint, the opposite parties filed a written version contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law. The 1^st opposite party collected crop insurance premium amount from the loan amount sanctioned to the complainant and deposited the same in LSP account of Central Agricultural Co-operative Bank.  If any damage occurred to the crops payment would be made as per rule 10 of the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme.  Hence, the National Agricultural Insurance Company is a necessary party to the proceedings. The head of the supervisory committee is the District Collector and this committee inspect the harvest and if there is any loss the committee would recommend the same to the Insurance Company.  Hence, neither the secretary nor the special officer is responsible. In the instant case, the National Agricultural Insurance Company was not made as a party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.   

5.      Before the District Commission in order to prove their case, the complainant and the opposite parties have filed their respective proof affidavits. On the side of the complainant, Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked whereas Exhibits B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

6.       After analyzing the evidences adduced by both parties, the District Commission has decided that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thus allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to give credit for the insured amount of Rs.25,000/- forthwith for the complainant’s crop loan and claim the same from the National Agricultural Insurance Corporation and also to pay Rs.5000/- as damages for mental agony and sufferings with costs of Rs.1500/- to the complainant. Aggrieved over the above order this appeal has been preferred by the opposite parties to set aside the same.    

7.         The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties would submit that the National Agricultural Insurance Company is a necessary party in the complaint.  In fact, the committee inspected the field and assessed the loss and recommended the same to the National Agricultural Insurance Company but they have not made any payment and as such circumstances no liability could be fixed against the Secretary and the Special Officer of the Co-operative Society. The counsel for the opposite parties also submitted that the appellants/opposite parties the Co-operative organisation acted only as an agent and collected premium amount from the complainant and paid the same to the National Agricultural Insurance Company of India and therefore the claim of insured amount from the opposite parties is unsustainable. It is a committee headed by the District Collector who has to monitor and recommend the Co-ordination Committee which will assess the harvest and loss.  Thereafter the committee would submit a report to the National Agricultural Insurance Company of India where the insurance company has the power to pay the harvesting loss.  In the event of the crop being damaged, the complainant has to claim the insured amount only from the National Agricultural Insurance Company of India. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable against the appellants/opposite parties before the Consumer Commission.      

8.      Heard the submissions and perused the materials available on record.  Keeping in mind the submissions made on either side, we have carefully considered the same. Since we have discussed the facts in detail as above, we refrain from reiterating the same any further in this appeal and only the facts which are germane are discussed hereunder.

9.    It is the contention of the appellants/opposite parties that they have collected a sum of Rs.1250/-from the loan amount advanced to the complainant.  As per the insurance scheme if there is any loss or damage caused to the crops, damages would be assessed by the committee headed by District Collector and compensation would be paid only based on the recommendation of the said committee by the National Agricultural Insurance Company and therefore the complainant ought to have impleaded the National Agricultural Insurance Company as a party to the complaint and in the absence of the said insurance company the complaint cannot be properly adjudicated and as such the decision of the District Commission has to be set aside. But, in our opinion, the opposite parties having collected the premium ought to have followed up the matter with the National Agricultural Insurance Company in order to ensure the complainant to get proper compensation. Instead of doing so, simply the opposite parties are trying to escape from their liability by stating that the complainant has to work out for remedy with the National Agricultural Insurance Company and therefore the National Insurance Company is a necessary party to the complaint.  We are not inclined to acknowledge the submission of the opposite parties as it was unreasonable. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the District Commission after carefully analyzing the facts of the case has rightly come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties and subsequently allowed the complaint. Therefore, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the order of the District Commission. Hence, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

10.      In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission, Perambalur, made in C.C.No.15/2009, dated 17.02.2010. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.   

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                                   R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                                       PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/November/2021