BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF MARCH 2023

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :      MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 1022/2019

V/s

ORDER

BY MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER

1.      The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.29.03.2019 passed in CC.No.152/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chitradurga. 

2.      The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant he is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.398 situated at Turuvanur Village measuring 19 acres, 27 guntas.  The complainant is also having SB Account with Opposite Party No.1.  On 30.06.2016, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.3,885/- towards the crop insurance premium amount to the Opposite Party No.1 under PMFBY Scheme for the year 2016-2017 through SB Account No.33901907227 to the Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1.  Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,16,909/- has been sanctioned to the complainant by the Opposite Party No.2.  But the said amount has not been remitted to the account of the complainant due to non furnishing of correct SB Account, IFSC Code of the banker, Aadhar Number, Mobile Number etc., of the complainant. The NEFT made by the banker of the Opposite Party No.2 has been rejected on the above said reason only.  Now the complainant prays for issue directions to the Opposite Party No.2 to remit the amount of Rs.1,16,909/- to him through NEFT or by way of DD.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      After service of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel and filed version.  The Opposite Party No.1 in his version admitted the receipt of amount of Rs.3,885/- from the complainant on 30.06.2016 towards the crop insurance premium amount under PMFBY Scheme fro the year 2016-2017 with respect to Sy.No.398 of Turuvanur Village, the same has been sent to Opposite Party No.2 within time.  The Opposite Party No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service in sending the premium amount to the Opposite Party No.2.  Because of non-furnishing of the essential requirements to receive the insurance amount by the complainant which was sanctioned by the Opposite Party No.2, the same has been rejected by the NEFT.  Further, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 

4.      The Opposite Party No.2 in its version contended that the premium debit cutoff date was on 10.08.2016 and the Opposite Party No.1 suppose to send all the proposals within 15.08.2016, but, as per the directions of the Department extended proposal acknowledgement till 08.12.2016, after cutoff date, if any bankers or complainant has sent the crop insurance premium amount to Opposite Party No.2 that applications are still pending, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Opposite Party, hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party No.2 to transfer Rs.1,16,909/- to the SB Account of the complainant after collecting necessary documents along with compensation and costs.

6.      Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellants/ Opposite Parties are in appeal.  Heard the arguments.

7.      Perused the appeal memo and Order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that it is not in dispute that the complainant is having an agricultural land bearing Survey No.398 measuring 19 acres 17 guntas situated at Turuvanur Village, Chitradurga and the complainant is having an SB account with Respondent No.1 bank and Respondent No.1 has received an amount of Rs.3,885/- on 30.06.2016 from the appellant/complainant towards PMFBY Scheme and the same has been sent to the Respondent No.2 within the prescribed time.  It is also not in dispute that the Respondent No.2 has sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,16,909/- to the appellant, but, due to failure of furnishing the proper documents, the same has been rejected through NEFT.  The allegation of appellant is that after sanctioning of the amount of Rs.1,16,909/- by the Respondent No.2, the same amount has not remitted to his account due to non-furnishing of correct SB account number, IFSC code and sought to remit the amount in the account of the appellant.

8.      Per contra, the Respondent No.2 insurance company in lower court contended that the premium debit cutoff date was on 10.08.2016, but as per directions of the department extended proposal acknowledgement bill 08.12.2016 after cutoff date.  If any banker has sent a crop insurance premium amount to Respondent No.2 insurance company that application is still pending.

9.      Perused the order passed by the District Commission.  we noticed that it is evident that an amount of Rs.1,16,909/- was already sanctioned by the Respondent No.2 insurance company to the appellant, but, for non-production of proper documents, the same has not been remitted to the SB account of the appellant.  Such being the case, if the amount is already sanctioned by Respondent No.2, then it is the duty of the insurance company to remit it to the account of the appellant after collecting necessary documents.  Hence, it is proper to issue direction to the Respondent No.2 to remit the amount which was sanctioned to the appellant’s SB account after taking necessary documents to meet the ends of justice.  Hence, considering the facts an discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission is just and proper.  No interference is required.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.

Forward free copies to both parties.

     Sd/-                                                    Sd/-

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*