BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.NO.75 OF 2004 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM
Between
1. Tata Krishna Kumari, W/o. Prasada Rao, Hindu, Aged 46 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
2. Konakalla Veera Raghavaiah, S/o. Venkatappaiah, Hindu, Aged 66 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
3. Tata Adinarayana, S/o. Venkatappaiah, Hindu, Aged 64 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
4. Ramireddy Gangi Reddy, S/o. Sesha Reddy, Hindu, Aged 52 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
5. Bathina Koteswara Rao, S/o. Narasaiah, Hindu, ated 38 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Peddarayuduthota, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
6. Uppalapu Sree Rama Krishna, S/o. Siva Reddy, Hindu, Aged 50 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
7. Pamireddy Rami Reddy, S/o. Siva Reddy, Hindu, Aged 41 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
8. Murari Parasuramaiah, S/o. Mallikharjunudu, Hindu, Aged 59 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Peddarayuduthota, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
9. Pamireddy Chinna Pichi Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged 62
years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna
District.
10. Katakam krishnarjuna Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, Hindu, Aged 50 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Racharlapalem, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
11. Tata Narayana Rao, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, Aged 56 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
12. Tata Ratna kumari, W/o. Venkatappaiah, Hindu, Aged 46 years
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
13. Peketi Subba Reddy, S/o. Sesha Reddy, Hindu, Aged 57 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
14. Peketi Sita Devi, W/o. Subba Reddy, Hindu, Aged 47 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
15. Marrivada Adiseshu, S/o. Kasiviswanadha Rao, Hindu, Aged 37 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
16. Ramireddy Pattabhi Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, Hindu, Aged 62 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
17. Uppalapu Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Pothuraju, Hindu, Aged 51 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
18. Katakam Nancharaiah, S/o. Subba Rao, Hindu, Aged 47 years, Agriculture, R/o.Racharla Palem, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
19. Katakam Venkata Subbamma, W/o. Subba Rao, Hindu, Aged 72 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
20. Battina Amaleswara Rao, S/o. Dharma Rao, Hindu, Aged 40 years, Agriculture, R/o. Pedda Rayuduthota, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
21. Chittibomma Venkata Ratnam, S/o. Sanjeeva Rao, Hindu, Aged 50 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
22. Jogi Govardhana Rao, S/o.Bramaiah, Hindu, Aged 42 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
23. Battina Satyanarayana, S/o. Veera Raghavaiah, Hindu, Aged 46 years, Agriculture, R/o. Polavaram, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.
24. Konakalla Ankala Rao, S/o. Anjaiah, Hindu, Aged 56 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kollapalem, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
25. Katakam Rama Rao, S/o.Chelamaiah, Hindu, Aged 66 years, Agriculture, R/o. racharlapalem, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
26. Thota Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o.Suryanarayana, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Agriculture, R/o. Racharlapalem, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
27. Thota Subbaiah, S/o. Bogaiah, Hindu, Aged 58 years, Agriculture, R/o. Racharlapalem, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
28. Katakam Ramulau, S/o. Chintaiah, Hindu, Aged 60 years, Agriculture, R/o. Racharlapalem, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
29. Marrivada Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o. Sura Reddy, Hindu, Aged 58 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
30. Koppala Soma Sundaram, S/o. Snajeva, Hindu, Aged 35 years, Agriculture, R/o. Malapalli, Kaza, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
31. Koppala Nageswaramma, W/o. Sanjeeva Rao, Hindu, Aged 57 years, Agriculture, R/o. Malapalli, Kaza, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
32. Konakalla Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Venkata Ratnam, Hindu, Aged 54 years Agriculture, R/o. Kollapalem, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
33. Katakam Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Sastrulu, Hindu, Aged 65 years, Agriculture, R/o. Polavaram, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.
34. Katakam Subba Rao, S/o. Sastrulu, Hindu, Aged 65 years, Agriculture, R/o. Racharla Palem, Movva Mandal, Krishna Disrict.
35. Penumaka Venkata Udaya Sudhakar, S/o. Sanjeev Rao, Hindu, Aged 38 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
36. Penumaka Sanjeev Rao, S/o.China Venkaiah, Hindu, Aged 67 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
37. Mururi Ganapathi Rao, S/o. Punnaiah, Hindu, Aged 65 years, Properties, R/o. Paddarayudu Thota, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
Appellants/complainants
AND
- The Secretary, Kaza Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society ltd., No.H.1102, Kaza.
- The Supervisor, Krishna District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Movva Branch, Movva.
- The Branch Manager, The Krishna District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Movva Branch,
- The General Manager, The Krishna District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Machilipatnam.
Respondents/Opposite Parties.
F.A.No. 470 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.NO.58 OF 2004
1. Ramireddy Ramesh Reddy, Hindu, Aged 48 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
2. Vatrapu Subba Reddy, S/o.Sitarami Reddy, Hindu, Aged 50 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
3. Marrivada Raghava Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 71 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
4. Vatrapu Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Koti Reddy, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
5. Manda Madhusudhana Reddy, S/o. Kagi Reddy, Hindu, Aged 60 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
6. Marrivada Kasiviswanadha Reddy, S/o. Sreedhara Reddy, Hindu, Aged
40 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna
District.
7. Marrivada Pichi Reddy, S/o. Kaji Reddy, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Hindu,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
8. Vatrapu Nagi Reddy, S/o. Palla Reddy, Hindu, Aged 52 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
9. Ravulapati Bhuchi Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged 50 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
10. Puritipati Balasubhramaneswara Reddy, S/o.Nageswara Reddy, Hindu,
Aged 32 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal,
Krishna District.
11. Vatrapu Ramadevi, W/o. Subba Reddy, Hindu, Aged 47 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
12. Tata Prasada Rao, S/o. Chalapathi Rao, Hindu, Aged 52 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
13. Tata Venkatappaiah, S/o. Chalapathi Rao, Hindu, Aged 40 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
14. Vuyyuru Rama Swamy, S/o.Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Aged 40 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
15. Jogi Venkateswara Rao. S/o. Bharmmaiah, Hindu, Aged 50 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
16. Murari Ramu, S/o.Ganapathi Rao, Hindu, Aged 37 years, Agriculture,
R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
17. Yarlagadda Nagendram, S/o.Venkaiah, Hindu, Aged 64 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
18. Marrivada Gangi Reddy, S/o. Prakasa Reddy, Hindu, Aged 57 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
19. Vatrapu Peramma, W/o.Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged 72 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
20. Konakalla Kameswara Rao, S/o. Venkataratnam, Hindu, Aged 37
years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna
District.
21. Naragam Bulli Parameswara Rao, S/o.Veera Swamy, Hindu, Aged 62
years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna
District.
22. Konakalla Bhagayala Rao, S/o.Sitaiah, Hindu, Aged 57 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
23. Tata Veera Raju, S/o. Adinarayana, Hindu, Aged 50 years, Agriculture,
R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
24. Murala prasada Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Aged 48 years,
Advocate, R/o. Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
25. Murala Sita Devi, W/o. Prasada Rao, Hindi, Aged 44 years, Properties,
R/o. Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
26. Morla Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Venkaiah, Hindu, Aged 39 years,
Properties, R/o. Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
27. Tata Kamala, W/o.Veera Raju, Hindu, Aged 47 years, Agriculture, R/o.
Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
28. Tata Venkatappaiah, S/o. Chalapathi, Hindu, Aged 46 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
29. Ede Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Venkata Swamy, Hindu, Aged 47 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
30. Marrivada Sitamma, W/o. Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged 62 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
31. Vatrapu Bhagavan Reddy, S/o. Narasa Reddy, Hindu, Aged 46 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
32. Vatrapu Krishna Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged 46 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
33. Peketi Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Pichi Reddy, Hindu, Aged 46 years, Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
34. Peketi Nagi Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, Hindu, Aged 40 years,
Agriculture, R/o. Kaza Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District.
Appellants/Complainants.
AND
1. The Secretary, Kaza Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society ltd., No.H.1102, Kaza.
2. The Supervisor, Krishna District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Movva Branch, Movva.
3. The Branch Manager, The Krishna District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Movva Branch,
4. The General Manager, The Krishna District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Machilipatnam.
Respondents/Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Appellants Sri M.Hari Babu
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri G.Narasimha Rao
Counsel for the Respondents No.2&4 Sri Ch.Ravindra Babu
QUORUM:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
THRUSDAY THE EIGTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
These two appeals emanate from the common order dated 5.12.2006 in C.C.No.75 of 2004 and C.C.No.58 of 2004 passed by the District Forum, Krishna at Machilipatnam. F.A.No.469 of 2007 is taken as the lead case.
The facts of the case as stated in the complaint are that the complainants are the members of the opposite party no.1 society of which the second opposite party is the supervisor and both opposite parties no.1 and 2 are working under the control of opposite parties no.3 and 4. The first opposite party used to lend crop loans to the complainants and remit insurance premium from the loan amount sanctioned to the opposite party no.3 that in turn used to remit the amount to the opposite party no.4. The opposite partyno.4 used to obtain insurance policy covering the risk on the crops raised by the complainants in their respective fields.
The opposite party no.4 had obtained insurance policy for the period from 1.4.2003 to 30.9.2003. During the year 2003 the third opposite party had given khariff crop loans to the members of the opposite party no.1 society through the opposite parties no.1 and 2. The opposite party no.3 disbursed a sum of Rs.40 lakh to the complainants and other members of the opposite party no.1 society . The loan amount was paid after deducting the crop insurance premium. The opposite party no.3 was in-charge of the affairs of the opposite party no.1 from the year of 2001. During the year 2003-2004 the crop yield was low on account of non-supply of water and the crops were damaged due to cyclone that occurred on 16.12.2003 in Krishna District.
The complainants sustained loss of Rs.12,000/- per acre during khariff season 2003. The government authorities inspected the lands of the complainant and declared muvva Mandal wherein the lands are located as drought affected area. As per the directions of the government the authorities concerned paid the sum assured to the farmers. The opposite parties failed to pay the insured amount to the complainants. The opposite party no.4 informed the complainants that the premium for obtaining crop insurance policy was not paid to the general insurance corporation. As per the circular issued by the opposite party no.4, the opposite parties no.2 and 3 are liable to pay the sum assured to the complainants on account of failure to discharge their duties. The complainants claimed a sum of Rs.4,88,000/- towards sum assured and costs of the proceedings.
The opposite party no.1 resisted the claim while admitting that it used to collect crop insurance premium from its members who obtained loan and remitted the amount to the third opposite party who in turn used to remit it to the fourth opposite party and it was the fourth opposite party who used to pay the insurance premium to the General Insurance Corporation of India. It is admitted that crop insurance premium for the year 2003 was collected from the complainants and the amount was remitted to the third opposite party. The opposite party no.1 sanctioned loan to an extent of Rs.4,98,650/- during the period 1.5.2003 to 30.9.2003, to the complainants. After the opposite party no.3 sanctioned the loan, the opposite party no.1 paid the amount to the complainants.
The practice in vogue was to pay the amount towards the premium by the opposite party no.3 through the opposite party no.4 by keeping the amount under suspense account and recover the amount from the opposite party no.1. The third opposite party used to recover the amount from out of the payments deposited by the opposite party no.1 in its suspense account. In the first instance, the third opposite party paid the crop insurance amount to the General Insurance Corporation through the opposite party no.4 and collected the amount at a later point of time from the loan amount sanctioned to the complainants. The same procedure was adopted during the year 2003. The third opposite party is the in-charge of the affairs of the first opposite party and second opposite party is the member of the committee of the opposite party no.1 society since 2001. The second and third opposite parties used to verify the activities of the first opposite party. The amount collected from the complainants was remitted by the opposite party no.1 to the opposite party no.3. There is no fault on the part of the opposite party no.1. As per the circular no.ADM/CROP/INSURANCE/03-04 dated 19.5.2003 issued by the opposite party no.4, the opposite party no.1 cannot be found fault with and it is the opposite parties no.2 and 3 who are responsible for not transmitting the amount to the opposite party no.4. It was pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party no.1.
The opposite parties no.2 to 4 had filed common counter contending that the opposite party no.1 used to collect crop insurance premium from the loanees and pass on the amount to the opposite party no.3 except during the khariff season, from 1.4.2003 to 30.9.2003. All the complainants were sanctioned loan to the extent of Rs.4, 88,000/- by the opposite party no.1 during the period from 1.4.2003 to 30.9.2003 and the crop insurance premium of Rs.12,204/- was collected by the opposite party no.1 which however was not remitted to the opposite party no.3, consequently the opposite party no.3 could not pay the amount to the opposite party no.4 to obtain the crop insurance policy from GIC. The first opposite party having collected the insurance premium is obligated to submit the declaration in the form prescribed by the GIC.
Basing on the information contained in the declaration, the amount of premium payable will be arrived at by the opposite party no.1 society. As per the circular dated 19.5.2003 issued by the opposite party no.4 on the subject of crop insurance, the declaration should be submitted by the opposite party no.3 so as to be received by the head office of the bank on the 10th of every month beginning from the month of June 2003 till October 2003. The opposite party no.1 failed to submit declaration not for even a month during the khariff season. Hence, insurance policy could not be obtained from the GIC. The opposite partyno.1 failed to remit the amount to the opposite party no.3 bank. The secretary of the opposite party no.1 society was suspended by the opposite party no.4 on 10.8.2004 on account of his failure to remit the crop insurance premium to the opposite party no.3 bank which was collected from the complainants.
The complainants were deprived of enjoying the benefit of crop insurance in view of the damage of their crops due to cyclone that occurred in the month of December 2003. The opposite parties no.2 to 4 are not responsible to pay any crop insurance amount to the complainants. There was no legal obligation or any statutory requirement for the opposite parties no.2 to 4 to collect the premium and pay it for obtaining the insurance policy. The complaint is not maintainable in view of the mandate of Sec.121 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant no.12 has filed his affidavit in support of the claim of the complainants and Ex.A1 was marked on their behalf.
Mandava Venkateswara Rao, the Branch Manager of the opposite party no.3 bank has filed his affidavit and V.Venkateswara Rao, Secretary of the opposite party no.1 society has filed his affidavit. Exs.B1 to B21 were marked.
The District Forum has dismissed the complaint opining that the complaint is not maintainable for the reasons that the complainants are not consumers in view of Sec.121 of Cooperative Societies Act and as many as 38 complainants cannot maintain the complaint.
The point for consideration is whether there the complainants are entitled to the amounts sought for?
The complainants are the members of the opposite party no.1 society. The complainants used to obtain loan from the opposite party no.3 through the opposite party no.1 society. It is the contention of the opposite party no.1 that irrespective of the time of payment of the loan amount to the complainants, the amount credited by it to the suspense account was used to be remitted by the opposite party no.3 towards the insurance premium. Whereas it is the plea of the opposite party no.3 that the opposite party no.1 is obligated to remit the amount towards the insurance premium deducting it from the loan amounts paid to the complainants. Further, it is contended that the opposite party no.1 had to submit a declaration containing the particulars of number of farmers, variety of crops, sum assured (quantum of loan sanctioned) full premium payable to the General Insurance Corporation of India, subsidy allowed in case of small and marginal farmers and the net premium payable to the insurance corporation.
Though the opposite party no.1 has contended that the crop insurance premium collected by it from the complainants besides the other loanees during the month of April 2003 to September 2003 and the same was remitted to the third opposite party, to the effect there is no evidence on record. The list under Exs.B1 and B2 containing the details of the particulars of the farmers and the premium paid, does not contain any signature nor can it be treated an acknowledgement by the opposite party no.3 and the fact is admitted by the opposite party no.1 in his evidence.
The opposite party no.4 has issued a circular Ex.B10 to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and other societies directing them to follow the instructions contained therein and informed them that the general insurance corporation would reject the declaration and premiums which are not sent within the cut off dates. The opposite parties no.2 to 4 contended that the opposite party no.1 had neither sent the declaration nor the premium to the opposite party no.3 within the prescribed cutoff dates. Ex.B4, the copy of the resolution passed by the oppose party no.1 would support the version of the opposite parties no.2 to 4.
Admittedly, the opposite party no.1 has collected the premium amount of RS.12,204/- from the complainants. The opposite parties no.2 to 4 have also supported the version of the complainants that the amount so deducted was from the loan amount pertaining to the complainants. The opposite party no.1, as aforesaid has not remitted the amount collected towards the insurance premium to the opposite parties no.2 to 4 so as to enable them to remit the amount to the general insurance corporation of India for the purpose of crop insurance policy covering the risk on the crops that were raised by the complainants by the loan amounts borrowed by the complainants. The opposite party no.1 cannot shift the burden on to the opposite parties no.2 to 4 by stating that the opposite parties no.2 and 3 supervised the affairs of the opposite party no.1 for a specific period of time. The opposite parties no.2 to 4 having not received the amount collected by the opposite party no.1 have no obligation of obtaining an insurance policy.
It is pertinent to note that there is no statutory obligation cast on the opposite parties no.2 to 4 to obtain the insurance policy even when no amount towards the premium has been paid by the complainants either directly or through the opposite party no.1 society. In the circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the opposite party no.1 has committed deficiency in service by collecting the amount of Rs.12,204/- from the complainants under the guise of the promise that the amount would be transmitted to the opposite parties no.2 to 4 for the purpose of obtaining the insurance policy. The opposite parties no.2 to 4 cannot be found fault with for to the failure of the opposite party no.1 in remitting, the amount collected from the complainants, to them.
The complainants claimed the sum assured on the premise that had the insurance been issued they would have received the sum assured of Rs.4,88,000/- owing to the reason that there was low yield due to non-supply of water and also that a cyclone during the relevant period hit Krishna District. Except Ex.A1, representation made to the opposite party no.4 requesting him to impose moratorium on the loans sanctioned to them, the complainants have not filed any notification of the State Government stated to have been issued in regard to the damage caused to the crops raised in their respective fields. No evidence of any manner has been brought on record either in the shape of affidavit or any document thereof from an agricultural officer to show that certain extent of damage was caused to the crops raised by the complainants and in the circumstances it is difficult to hold that the complainant sustained loss as also that there was damage to the crops raised by them in their respective fields.
The complainants have to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 but the damage they had suffered on account of such deficiency in service by the opposite party no.1. As aforesaid, the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 is established as the opposite party no.1 had retained the amount collected from the complainants. The damage to the crops stated to have been suffered is not substantiated by the complainants. The averment of the complaint that the crops in the fields of the complaints experienced less yield can be held sufficient to show that the complainants have not approached the District Forum showing the exact quantum of the yield and the expected quantum of yield from the crops that were raised in their fields.
In view of our finding that the opposite party no.1 had negligently retained the amount collected towards the insurance premium and thereby committed deficient service towards the complainants we are inclined to direct the opposite party no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.12,204/- and an amount of RS.10,000/- towards compensation so that the opposite party no.1 is deterred in doing the negligent act in future in respect of not only the complainants but any of its members. The opposite party no.1 is liable to pay a total amount of Rs.22, 204/- to the complainants.
In the result, the appeal F.A.No.469 of 2007 is allowed directing the opposite party no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.22,204/- to the complainants along with costs of Rs.2,000/-. The complaint against the opposite parties no.2 to 4 is dismissed. The complainants are entitled to the said amount proportionate to the premium that was deducted by the opposite party no.1 from their loan amounts. Time for compliance four weeks.
F.A.No.470 of 2007
In the result, the appeal is allowed directing the opposite party no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.22,419/- ( Rs.12,419 + Rs.10,000/- towards compensation) to the complainants along with costs of Rs.2,000/-. The complaint against the opposite parties no.2 to 4 is dismissed. The complainants are entitled to the said amount proportionate to the premium that was deducted by the opposite party no.1 from their loan amounts. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.08.07.2010
KMK*
