Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/6/2014

Sivakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Thalaignayiru Primary Agricultural Co-op Ltd and Two others. - Opp.Party(s)

T.Ravichandran

26 Dec 2014

ORDER

   Date of Filing     : 24.02.2014

                                                                                         Date of Disposal:26.12.2014

           

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com., …. MEMBER I

                   Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMBER II

 

CC. No.06/2014

 

DECIDED ON THIS 26^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2014.

 

Sivakumar

S/o Rajamanickam

Mudhaliappa condy,

Kaarappidakai South Village,

Kilvelur Taluk

Nagapattinam District.                                                         … Complainant

                                                                                      

                                                                /versus/

 

1. The Secretary,

          Thalaignayaru Primary Co-operative

          Agricultural Credit Society Ltd.,

         Thalaignayaru Post, Vedharanyam Taluk.

2. The District Collector,

          Collectorate, Nagapattinam.

3. The Village Administrative Officer,

          Thalaignayaru Akraharam Village,

         Thalaignayaru Post, Vedharanyam Taluk.                      … Opposite parties

 

              

 

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 10.12.2014 on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru.T.Ravichandran, Counsel for the complainant, Government Pleader, for the opposite parties and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum passed the following

 

 

ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

        2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that the complainant has raised paddy cultivation during  period 2012-2013 in the extent of eastern 70 cents compresed in survey no.171/5B, the eastern 1 Acre in survey no.181/2A and western 0.99 cents in survey no.181/2A belonging of his wife Thirumathi.Sudha totalling acre 2.69 and he has paid premium of Rs.1606/- with the 1^st opposite party under the National Insurance Scheme and owing to drought prevailing in that period many farmers have received insurance amount and the relief amount granted by the state Government.  But the complainant is not paid neither the insurance amount nor any relief fund and in spite of his request made to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and lawyers notice sent on 5.04.2012 and another notice on 13.06.2013 there was neither reply nor any response from the opposite parties.  The 2^nd opposite parties having collected the statistics through the 3^rd opposite party regarding the farmers who sustained loss  the owing to drought condition and submitted report to the opposite party No.1 insurance amount and relief fund were disbursed through the 1^st opposite party to the affect the agriculturists based on the said report.  But the complainant is not given neither the insurance amount nor the relief amount and it is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complainant prays for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay the insurance amount and relief amount and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to him along with the cost of this litigation and to grant such and other reliefs as this Forum would may deem fit.

                        3. The gist of the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party and adopted the the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties is that the allegation of the complainant that no relief amount is paid to him is false and insurance amount is paid to all the agriculturists including the complainant on 23.02.2013. The insurance amount is paid to the complainant through the 1^st opposite party at the rate of Rs.8692 per acre and the insurance amount due to the complainant Rs.11471/- had been received by the complainant.  Further the insurance amount of Rs.13112/- due on the premium amount paid by the Government sanctioned to the complainant is not received by the complainant despite the oral intimation given to him by the 1^st opposite party.  The relief fund of the Government was given to the farmers, whose lands were inspected by the 3^rd opposite party and entries were made in the Adangal account as regards the ratio of yield of cultivate during period 2012-2013.  The complainant had not sustained any loss in the cultivation and he had utilized the diesel subsidy and the crops yield ratio was 70% hence he was not granted the relief amount.  Even many agriculturists whose cultivation is not affected owing to their irrigation using the diesel engine after getting the diesel at the subsidized rate only are not paid the relief amount. Only those agriculturists who had really sustained the loss owing to drought alone were paid the relief amount.  The complainant was in person informed of the reason for nonpayment of relief fund to him, the reply was not given to his notice.  The complainant had informed any petition claiming relief fund on the basis of loss in his cultivation of paid crops either to the 2^nd opposite party.  The complaint is filed by the complainant had had false allegation with due to caused in convenience and hardship to the opposite parties.  The balance of the insurance amount is with the 1^st opposite party and had any working hours, the complainant entitled to get it back in person.  The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                        4. The complainant has filed his proof affidavit reiterating all the averments made in the complaint and has filed 6 documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A6. The 1^st opposite party has filed his proof affidavit in support of his defence and filed 10 documents which are marked as Exhibits B1 to B10.  The written arguments are filed only by the opposite parties and the complainant has not filed any written arguments and there were no representation also in his behalf at the time of hearing oral arguments also.

5. Points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

                       2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what?

 

                        6. The main allegation of the complainant is that neither the insurance amount nor the relief amount was paid to him by the opposite party.  The complainant has filed Exhibit A1, the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer staying that  the paddy had been cultivated in the complainant’s lands during the period 2011-2012, Exhibit A2 is the receipt for the payment of Rs.1606/- towards the premium amount for the crops insurance scheme, Exhibit A3 is the application given by the complainant before the District Project Officer, Exhibit A4 is the acknowledgment given to the complainant for his petition at the collectorate on the grievance day, Exhibit A5 is the office copy of the lawyer’s notice sent by the complainant lawyer to the opposite parties, Exhibit A6 is the notice given by the 1^st opposite party calling for payment of premium amount under the National Crops Insurance Scheme on or before 15.12.2012.

                        7.Exhibit A1 the certificate given by the Village Administrative Officer, opposite no.3 reveals that the complainant had cultivated paddy in the lands comprised in survey  no.181/2A Hec.0.80.5 and survey no.171/5B Hec.0.28.5 totalling Hec.1.09.0 during the period 2011-2012 and Exhibit A2, is the receipt for the  premium amount remitted by the complainant under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS). On the side of the opposite parties the computer patta for the survey no.181/2A and survey no.171/5B are filed as Exhibits B1 and B2 respectively.  It is pertinent to note that neither the complainant’s name nor his father’s name find place in the pattadars’ name.  Even his wife’s name is not found. However his cultivation of the said lands is not under dispute.

                        8.  On the side of the opposite parties Exhibit B3, the adngal accounts relating to the lands compressed in survey no.171 and 181 including the complainant’s cultivable lands for the 1422 fasli. Exhibit B4 the list of farmer’s name to whom the crops insurance amount is remitted by the 1^st opposite party, Exhibit B5, the statement of account relating to the complainant’s savings bank account with the 1^st opposite party, Exhibit B6, the list of farmers who have received the 2^nd and 3^rd installments of the insurance amount from the 1^st opposite party, Exhibit B7, the withdrawal form given by the complainant for Rs.9613/- from his savings bank account. Exhibit B8, the voucher given by the complainant for the withdrawal of the sum of Rs.1858/-, Ex.B9 another voucher for the withdrawal of Rs.10988/- from his account, Exhibit B10, the list of farmers  who have been paid the insurance amount by the 1^st opposite party are filed in support of their defence.

                        9. Exhibit B3, the adngal accounts reveals that the ratio of yield of paddy cultivated in the lands of the complainant is 70% which is a good yield.  Further the complainant is said to have raised paddy cultivation by irrigation of water using oil engine for which he availed diesel at subsidized rates. The defence of the opposite  parties is that the farmers who have received 70% of the yield using diesel subsidy for irrigation purpose were not given relief fund by the Government. The insurance amount have been paid by the opposite party no.1 as evidenced by Exhibit B4, B6 and B10, and the said amounts have also been received by the complainant as evidenced by Exhibits B7, B8, B9, the vouchers signed by the complainant and also Exhibit B5 the statement of account relating to the saving bank account of the complainant with the 1^st opposite party. Therefore the allegation of the complainant the he was neither paid the insurance amount nor the relief amount is proved to be false. The complaint itself is filed under some misconception. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

                        10. Point 2: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. The complainant has not even filed his written arguments as per the mandatory Provisions of Regulation No.13 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005. Therefore the complainant is directed to pay the sum of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) to the opposite parties towards their costs and another Rs.500/- to the consumer Legal Aid Account by way of penance for not filing the written arguments. The complainant is not entitled to get the free copy of the order under Regulation no.21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 unless he remits the said amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, directly typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this  26^th   day of  December 2014.

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant

 

Ex/A1.Dt.15.11.20011: The certificate given by the 3^rd opposite party.

Ex/A2.Dt.19.11.2012: The Xerox copy of the receipt for payment of premium by the

                complainant under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme.

Ex/A3.Dt.18.03.2013: The application given by the complainant to the District Project

      Officer, Nagapattinam.,

Ex/A4.Dt. 18.03.2013: The acknowledgment for the receipt of the petition from the

    complainant at the collectorate on the grievance

   day

Ex/A5.Dt.13.06.2013: The office copy of the lawyer’s notice sent by the complainant to

     the opposite parties with postal receipts.

Ex/A6.Dt.Nil              :  The General notice given by the 1^st opposite party for the

    payment  of insurance premium.

 

 

 

 

List  of document filed by the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.B1/Dt. 20.11.2014: The computer patta No.28, issued in the Taluk Office,

    Vedharanyam.

 

Ex.B2/Dt. 20.11.2014: The computer patta No.362, issued in the Taluk Office,

    Vedharanyam.

Ex.B3/Dt.                     : The adngal extract for 1422 fasli given by the Taluk Office,

     Vedharanyam.

Ex.B4/Dt.                     : The list of farmers who received the insurance amount from the

   1^st opposite Party.

 

Ex.B5/Dt.                      : The Xerox copy of the statement of saving bank account

      No.4013 of the  complainant with the 1^st  opposite party.

 

Ex.B6/Dt.                    : The list of farmers who have received the Insurance amount of

    the  2^nd and  3^rd installments of the insurance amount from the 1^st

     opposite party.

 Ex.B7/Dt. 03.02.2014: The voucher for the withdrawal of Rs.9613/- by the complainant

     from his said Savings Bank account.

Ex.B8/Dt.19.05.2014: The withdrawal of Rs.1858/- by the complainant from the said

    Savings Bank Account

 Ex.B9/Dt.13.06.2014: Voucher for the withdrawal of the sum of RS.10988/- by the

    complainant from the said Savings Bank Account.

 Ex.B10/Dt.                : The list of farmers to whom the insurance amount is sanctioned.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.06/ 2014

Order Dt.:26.12.2014.