IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 19th day of November, 2009
Filed on 23.08.06
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.191/06
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.Jameskutty Mathew, 1. State Bank of India,
Mannamthuruthil House, Represented by its Branch Manager,
Pandy.P.O, Karuvatta(via), Edathua, ADB.3034.
Cheruthana Village, Alleppey
(By Adv.George Mathew) 2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd,
Represented by its Regional Manager,
Kerala Regional Office, TC-14-1765,
Ground Floor Bakery Junction,
Thiruvananthpuram
(By Adv.C.Parameswaran)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is that he was taken an agricultural loan from the 1st opposite party. As per the policy of the Government of India all crops are to be insured through 2nd opposite party. During the period of the said loan his cultivations were lost due to drought. Against this loss he approached the bank for getting the insurance benefit. But the bank replied that no insurance policy was taken for the corps insurance. Hence the complainant filed this petition.
1.The 1st opposite party filed version stating that there is no contract between the complainant and the bank for taking the insurance coverage. They were not received any consideration from the complainant or the 2nd opposite party for taking an insurance policy, there is no loss caused to the cultivation of the complainant. The 2nd opposite party filed version stated that nobody was taken any insurance coverage for covering the crops cultivated by the complainant under the scheme of the loan taken from the 1st opposite party. The bank has not furnished the details of farmers, details of loan issued from the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party also submits that all claims pertaining to all the notified zones including that of Cheruthana notified Zon for Rabi-l 2003-2004 season has already been paid as per the declarations submitted by all the nodal banks in the state, including SBI, ADB, Cullen Road, Alappuzha. There is no deficiency on the part of the 2nd opposite party.
2. Considering the rival contentions of the both sides this forum raise following issues. a. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Complainant examined one witnesses and produced 1 document which is marked as Exbt. A1. Opposite party examined 1 witnesses and produced 9 documents which are marked as Exhibit B1 to B9.
4. The case of the complainant is that the 1st opposite party is liable to insure the crops loan with the 2nd opposite party. It is their duty to collect the premium and take the policy. On going through the documents produced by the 2nd opposite party it can be seen that it is a beneficial scheme for the protection of the farmers. Agriculture sector is a one of the first priority of the government and for protecting the losses the government implemented this insurance scheme for saving from the perils. The directions and circulars of the Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India is binding on all the banks in India. The 2nd opposite party admitted that the area of the complainant's cultivation, Cheruthana Village is also come within the purview of the benefits of the insurance scheme. Unfortunately the 1st opposite party has not taken insurance policy or paid the premium for covering the risk. State Bank of India is the nodal bank in the Alappuzha District. Even then the 1st opposite party is an another branch of the State Bank of India has not taken any steps for protecting their loanee. As per the phamlet of the 2nd opposite party-Exhibit A1 it is clearly indicated that the loanee need not paid any premium directly. Instead of that the Bank will debit the premium amount and will take a policy covering the risk for the complainant. But the Bank has failed to do so. This is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
5.The complainant claims that he suffered a loss of Rs.13,780/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty only). But he has not produced any document to substantiate his case. The complainant has not filed even a report from the agricultural officer stating the loss of the crops. In the absence of concrete evidence the claim of the complainant cannot be entertained.
As stated above there is a deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence we quantifying the damages for the deficiency caused to the opposite party is Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only). In the result this complaint allowed and the 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant. There is no order on cost. Complain allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 19th day of November, 2009.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Jameskutty Mathew(Witness)
Ext. A1 - Leaflet of Agricultural Insurance Company
Ext. A2 - Pass book
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - P.V.Davis (Witness)
Ext. B1 - Government Order
Ext. B2 - Letter no.13011/15/99-Credit-II dated, 16/07/95
Ext. B3 - Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers
Ext. B4 - Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers
Ext. B5 - Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers
Ext. B6 - Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers
Ext. B7 - Payable Statement
Ext. B8 - Letter to the SBI Manager dated, 10/06/2005
Ext. B9 - Utilization Certificate
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
