CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM    PALAKKAD

Dated this the 26^th day of  April 2014

PRESENT :  SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT

               :  SMT.  SHINY. P.R, MEMBER

               :  SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER                                  Date  of filing :  11/1/2013

                                                            CC / 13 / 2013

Dins Michael,

S/o. Michael,

Kizhakkeparambil House,

Panamkutty, Koranchira,

Kizhakkenchery Amsam,

Alathur Taluk, Palakkad Dt.                                        :           Complainant

(By Adv. M. Raveendran)

                        Vs

1. The Secretary,

    The Kizhakkenchery Service Co-operative  Bank Ltd.,

    Kizhakkenchery.

    (By Adv. A.V.Ravi)

2. The Secretary,

    Palakkad District Co-operative Bank,

    Palakkad.

    (By Adv. M.S. Skaria & Adv. Redson Skaria)

3. The Manager,

    The Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd.,

    Thiruvananthapuram.

    (By Adv. K. Lakshynaranayan)

4. The Manager,

     Palakkad District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

     Vadakkenchery Branch,

     Palakkad Dt.                                                           :           Opposite parties

     (By Adv. M.S. Skaria)

                                                                 O R D E R

BY SMT. SEENA. H,  PRESIDENT

Complaint in brief:

            Complainant herein is an agriculturist.  He has availed loan from 1^st opposite party for rubber farming on 26/5/2007 as per Kissan credit card  loan account No. 270  for an amount of Rs. 35,000/-.  At the time of availing loan he was made believe that the crops were under insurance cover and premium amount was also paid.  He was also made believe by 1^st opposite party that if the crops were lost  he will be reimbursed to the full.  On 3/7/2007 due to natural disaster the crops of the complainant totally got lost.  The complainant intimated the fact to 1^st opposite party.  1^st opposite party has not taken any steps for getting the insurance amount to the complainant.  1^st opposite party has initiated steps for recovery  of the loan amount and an order in their favour was also obtained.  According to the complainant, the act of 1^st opposite party in abstaining from distributing the insurance amount and taking steps for recovering loan amount is totally against the assurance given by them.  The act amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence the complaint.  Complainant prays for an order directing the 1^st opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 50,470/- being the loan amount along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

            1^st opposite party filed version.  2^nd to 4^th opposite parties were subsequently impleaded.   They also filed version.  1^st opposite party admits that the complainant has availed a loan from 1^st opposite party.  According to 1^st opposite party they are only an agency to collect the insurance premium from farmers and the same was remitted before 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties and in turn they have remit the same to the 3^rd opposite party insurance company.  According to them the amount has been collected as insurance premium which is a statutory one as directed by the 3^rd opposite party and the same has been properly remitted to 2^nd opposite party and 4^th opposite party.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.

            According to 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties.  Complainant has not availed any service from 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties.  According to 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties, they are unnecessary parties in the above complaint and hence prays for dismissal of complaint with compensatory cost.

3^rd opposite party filed version contenting the following:

            According to 3^rd opposite party, the complaint is barred by limitation.  3^rd opposite party in the version has explained the salient  features and objectives of the insurance scheme. The Scheme is purely a social welfare measure.  Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. is acting merely as an “agent” of Central Government for the purpose of administering the Scheme.

Further states that the Scheme operates on an “area approach”, wherein the losses have to be indemnified on the basis of the yield data submitted by the State Government.  The NAIS provisions stipulates minimum required Crop Cutting Experiments (CCEs) for each notified area both under General Crops Estimation Surveys (GCES) and NAIS.  As per NAIS provision the minimum required CCEs are 8 for each notified “Zone” and 16 per “Block”.  The State Level Co-ordination Committee on Crop Insurance (SLCCCI) in the beginning of each season notifies crops and areas for NAIS in the State.  As per the NAIS the unit area could be District, Tehsil, Taluk, Block, Mandal, Firka, Hobli Village Panchayat or Village as decided by the SLCCCI.  Such unit area of insurance in Kerala State for Paddy Crop is “Zone” which consists of mostly one or more Panchayats and for other Annual Commercial/Horticulture Crops it is a “Block”.  Hence the yield data submitted by the State Government to the implementing agency ie, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd.,  Regional Office shall be considered for arriving at the compensation, if any, payable under NAIS.  The State Government issues GO accompanied with Notification Guidelines in the beginning of the season for implementation of NAIS in the State which contains the list of the crop-wise, district-wise and block-wise notified areas (Zones)/Blocks as well as crop-wise limits of Sum Insured per hectares, Levels of Indemnity, various Cut-off Dates for disbursement of crop  loans to be covered, submission of declarations to implementing agency by the financial institutions and the Premium Rates applicable for each Crop, the subsidy in premium and submission of crop-wise notified area-wise Yield Data by the State Government to the implementing agency etc. and the same is forwarded to all participating Financial Institutions (FIs) along with the guidelines for FIs.

            Further states that the complainant in this complaint has stated that he has lost rubber crop on 3/7/2007 due to landslide.   NAIS does not cover rubber and the  contention that company has insured their rubber crops is false.  According to 3^rd opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part.

The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavits.  Ext.A1 to Ext. A5 marked on the side of complainant and Ext.B1 to Ext.B4 marked on the side of opposite parties.  PW1, DW1, DW2 were examined.

Issues for consideration

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issues 1 & 2

Complaint is alleging deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party in non processing the insurance claim of the complainant and settle the loan account.  Heard both parties and gone through entire evidence on record.

In the complaint even though supplementary opposite parties 2 to 4 were impleaded, no deficiency in service is seen alleged against 2^nd to 4^th opposite parties.  No allegation against 2^nd to 4^th opposite parties is seen raised either in the chief affidavit or in the argument notes filed.  Further complaint  itself seems to be vague one for the reason that complainant himself has no consistent case.  In the complaint it is stated that loan is availed for rubber cultivation whereas while cross examination he has stated that loan is availed for banana cultivation.  It is alleged by the complainant that due to natural calamities the whole rubber cultivation including  plantain coconut trees etc. were destroyed and the same was intimated to 1^st opposite party by Ext.A3.  1^st opposite party has denied receipt of Ext.A3.  No evidence adduced by the complainant to show that Ext.A3 was received by 1^st opposite party.  Even if it is accepted that the letter was received by the 1^st opposite party it is seen that the complainant has kept mum  for a period of 5 years.  Ext.A3 is dated 3/7/2007.  The complainant has received the letter of the Assistant Registrar on 19/10/2012.  Only on receipt of the said letter complainant has preferred the present complaint.  Complaint is specifically barred by limitation as far as 1^st opposite party is concerned.  Complaint was admitted  initially for a sole reason  that no repudiation letter was issued to the complainant.  Even after impleading 3^rd opposite party Insurance Company complainant has no allegation against them.  Even on merits there is no concrete evidence to attribute the deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  We are of the view that complainant miserably failed to prove his case.  Hence complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th day of April 2014

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                    Smt. Seena. H

                                                                                        President

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                    Smt. Shiny. P.R

                                                                                         Member

                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                    Smt. Suma. K.P

                                                                                          Member

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1  - Kissan Credit Card Loan Pass Book (original) issued by the 1^st opposite party   to the    complainant.

Ext.A2  -  Receipt (original) issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

Ext.A3 -  Letter (copy) sent by the complainant (and his brother) to the 1^st opposite party dated 5/9/2007.

Ext.A4  -  Order (copy) passed in the court of  Alathur Co-operative Assistant Registrar.

Ext.A5  -  Letter (copy) sent by the complainant’s brother to The Arbitrator.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Ext.B1 -  Letter (copy) sent by the 1^st opposite party to 3^rd opposite party dated 6/2/2013.

Ext.B2  -  Reply letter (copy) issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party dated     13/2/2013.

Ext. B3 -   Circular (copy) issued by the 2^nd opposite party dated 29/7/2005.

Ext.B4  -  Circular (copy) issued by the 2^nd opposite party dated 7/11/2006.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1     -  Dins Michael

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

DW1    -  V. Ramakrishnan.

DW2    -  R. Seethadevi

Cost allowed

Nil