Date of filing:23-02-2013
Date of Disposal: 24-11-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU.
PRESENT: -Kum. Y.H.Prameela Reddy, M.A., LL.B., President
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday, the 24th day of November, 2014
C.C.NO.64/2013
Between:
- K.Lakshmi Reddy
S/o Bayapa Reddy
- K.Bayapa Reddy
S/o Lakshmi Reddy
Both are r/o Jagarajupalli Village
Puttaparthy Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainants
Vs.
- The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Brahmanapalli Branch,
Puttaparthy Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District.
- The Divisional Manger,
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd.,
General Insurance Corporation of India,
8th floor united towers
Basheer Bagh,
Hyderabad. … Opposite Parties
This complaint coming on this day for hearing before us in the presence of Sri B.Viswanath, Advocate for the complainants, Sri N.R.K.Mohan, Advocate for the 1st opposite parties and Sri A.G.Neelakanta Reddy, Advocate for the 2nd opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Kum.Y.H.Prameela Reddy, President: - This complaint is filed by the complainants under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay the balance insurance amount of Rs.11,185/-, Rs.6,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses and also award costs of the complaint, with the following brief allegations that:
2. The complainants i.e. K.Lakshmi Reddy S/o Bayapa Reddy and K.Bayapa Reddy S/o Lakshmi Reddy, resident of Jagarajupalli Village, Puttaparthy Mandal. They are the absolute owners of the land to an extent of Ac.5.69 cents of Jagarajupalli Village fields. The complainants were raising the Groundnut Crop in their lands and obtained crop loan from the 1st opposite party and repaying the same promptly and regularly without any default. The complainants stated that at the time of obtaining the crop loan, the 1st opposite party is deducting the crop insurance premium from the complainants and in turn the said amount was paying by the 1st opposite party to the 2nd opposite party. Accordingly, in the year 2008 the complainants obtained crop loan from the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party deducted insurance premium from the complainants and sent the same to the 2nd opposite party. The complainants raised the Groundnut crop in the year 2008, but the groundnut crop of the complainants were completely failed. The Government Officials along-with the officials of 2nd opposite party visited the fields of the complainants and collected the samples of Groundnut crop before harvesting, for estimation of the loss of crop. Further the complainants learnt that the revenue officials and the officials of the 2nd opposite party estimated the crop loss and the Government announced the crop insurance details in the year 2009 in all the daily Newspapers. According to the said news, Jagarajupalli Revenue Village farmers are entitled the crop insurance at the rate of 82.74% for Kharief 2008. As per the above decision taken by the Government, the complainants are entitled to receive the insurance @ 82.74%. But on verifying the accounts, to the shock of the complainants that the 2nd opposite party credited the crop insurance amount @ 38% instead of 82.74% into the account of the complainants. Immediately, the complainants approached the 1st opposite party and on verification , it came into light that the 1st opposite party has committed the mistake in sending the particulars of percentage of crop insurance amount payable to the complainant is 38% instead of 82.74%. Further the 1st opposite party also paid the crop insurance amount to the complainants @ 38 instead of 82.74%. The 1st opposite party promised that he will rectify the mistake as early as possible. The complainants believing on the words of the 1st opposite party and waiting for balance insurance amount. About six months back, the complainants came to know that some of the Villagers of Venkatagaripalli and Jagarajupalli approached the District Consumer Forum and the District Consumer Forum directed the 1st opposite party to pay the balance insurance amount with costs and the 1st opposite party preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission and the A.P.State Commission also dismissed the appeal preferred by the 1st opposite party. Whenever the complainants came to know the same she approached the 1st opposite party and requested to pay balance insurance amount and the 1st opposite party promised that he shall pay the balance insurance amount within one month. But he did not pay the amount and postponed the same without any justifiable reasons. Finally the complainants issued a legal notice on 28-06-2012 to the 1st opposite party demanding to pay the balance insurance amount and the said notice was served on the 1st opposite party, but the 1st opposite party did not pay any amount or issued any reply notice. Hence, the complaint.
3. On the other hand, the 1st opposite party filed counter denying some of the allegations and admitting some of the allegations as follows:
The complaint is bad in law and not maintainable. The allegations made in the complaint are not correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations, which are not specifically admitted herein. The allegation that the complainants are the resident of Jagarajupalli Village and they have been raising crop in their lands and obtained a crop loan from this opposite party is true. The allegation that they have been repaying the amount promptly without any default is not correct. The allegation that at the time of obtaining crop loan, this opposite party has deducted the crop insurance premium and in turn has paid into 2nd opposite party is true. The allegation that in the year 2008 the complainants have obtained a crop loan and insurance premium was deducted and the same was sent to 2nd opposite party is true. The complainants are put to strict proof of the fact that the crop is raised in the year 2008 and it has been completely failed. It is true that Government Officials of the opposite party visited the fields and collected the samples and estimated the loss. The same was done in the each Village and the complainants are put to strict proof that it was also done in the lands of the complainants. The allegation that crop insurance was announced in the year 2009 is true. The Jagarajupalli Village farmers are entitled for crop insurance @ 82.74% for Kharif 2008 is true. The complainants are entitled for the said amount is true. An amount of 38% was credited is also true. The allegation that the complainants have approached the opposite party and it has come to light of this opposite party that he has committed a mistake in sending the particulars of insurance amount payable is not correct. The allegation that this opposite party promised to rectify the mistake if any is true. In fact the letters were sent to 2nd opposite party showing the correct Village name and the other particulars. The allegation that this opposite party promised and believing the version of this opposite party the complainant has waited is not correct. The allegation that about six months back has come to know that Villagers of Venkatagaripalli and Jagarajupalli approached the District Forum and it has directed this opposite party to pay the amount and in the appeal the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission has dismissed the appeal is not correct. The complainants and other Villagers are aware of the pendency of the proceedings. The allegation that whenever the complainants came to know that the District Consumer Forum directed this opposite party to pay the amount, the complainants approached the opposite party and requested to pay the balance amount and this opposite party promised that the balance amount will be paid in the last week of December, 2012 is not correct. This opposite party never promised as alleged. The allegation that the same was postponed without any jurisdiction is not correct. It is true that a notice was served on this opposite party. The allegation that this opposite party committed mistake in processing the crop loan insurance and failed to pay the amount is not correct. The 2nd opposite party is a necessary party and it is alone liable to pay the amount. Since the relief is not claimed against the 2nd opposite party, this complaint as such is not maintainable. Further the 1st opposite party contended that the Bank while sanctioning of agricultural crop loan, it is mandatory to deduct the premium amount for crop insurance as per the terms of loan agreement, as well as laid down policy of the Government had sent the premium along-with borrowers application by inserting the details of area where the crop will be cultivated and the location of the land etc., The contract of insurance is between the insured and Insurance Company. The consideration for the insurance contract is payment of premium by insured and acceptance of the same by the Insurance Company. When the premium is paid and the said premium was received by the Insurance Company, there is a binding contract between the insured and insurance company. In the instant case it is admitted fact that insurance premium was paid by the complainant and the same was received by the Insurance Company. Having accepted the insurance premium the 2nd opposite party cannot escape from the liability for payment of insurance if the complainant is eligible by shifting the liability upon the Banker. The Banker never be an insurance company for meeting the demand of payment of insurance amount to the complainants. The Bank has accepted a role of agent for payment of premium of the complainants by debiting to his loan account along-with application for insurance. If there is mistakenly mentioned in respect of Village or Mandal name where the crop is located in the application form by the Banker while submitting application, it is not fatal for the contract of insurance by escaping the liability by the insurance company by showing some ground or other. It is further admitted by the complainants that the insurance company representative’s visited the fields while accepting the insurance. If that would be the case, if at all there is mistakenly mentioned by the Bank regarding location of crop, it would have been rectified after inspection by the insurance company. Even other-wise, the Banker never assume the role of insurance company by stepping into the shoes for payment of insurance amount as claimed by the complainants. This opposite party is absolutely not liable for payment of any compensation. This opposite party-Bank has done the job without any remuneration or benefit and it was done out of service motto. So there is no consumer relation between the complainants and the Bank. So the complaint itself is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. There is no relationship of consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act between this opposite party and the complainants in respect of the payment of insurance amount. Cause of action for the complaint arose in the year 2009 when the insurance was declared and so the present complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs of 1st opposite party.
4. The 2nd opposite party has filed counter denying the allegations in the complaint with the following brief contents:
The complainants are among other farmers, who had received lesser percentage of claims due to the mistake committed by the 1st opposite party in reporting correct notified area and some of these deprived farmers had approached the District Consumer Forum by filing C.C.No.04/2011 (total 62 batch cases) the complaint was allowed. The District Consumer Forum had acquitted the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party was made liable to pay the claims, order dt.15-04-2011, later aggrieved by the orders of the District Consumer Forum, Ananthapuramu, the 1st opposite party had filed the appeals (F.A.No.506/2011 & 33 others batch cases) before the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission, Hyderabad and the appeals were dismissed and the 1st opposite party was made liable order dated 27-02-2012. This complaint matter is squarely similar to the above adjudicated cases. The complainants had obtained crop loan from the 1st opposite party for the Groundnut crop raised during Kharif 2008 season and during that period the premium amount was deducted from the complainants’ account and was remitted to this opposite party. The complaint was filed on 04-07-2013 i.e. beyond the period of two years of availing the loan and hence barred by limitation. Moreover the judgments also manifest that the issuance of legal notice and other correspondence made would not save the period of limitation. The complainants have other than this complaint not corresponded on this matter with the 2nd opposite party therefore obvious that the complaint is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground itself. The 2nd opposite party contended that State Bank of India, Region – 5, Tirupati have submitted two declarations pertaining to Kappalabanda Village, Puttaparthy Mandal, Ananthapuramu District for Groundnut Unirrigated Crop during Kharif 2008 season and basing on these declarations having consolidated details it is not possible for this opposite party to ascertain whether the premium in respect of the complainants were included in these declarations. The same is thus subject to authentication by the 1st opposite party that the premium of the complainants/farmers are included in these declarations. No declaration was submitted by State Bank of India, Region -5, Tirupati for Jagarajupalli Village of Puttaparthy Mandal in respect of Groundnut unirrigated crop during Kharif 2008 season. The 2nd opposite party further contended that National Agricultural Insurance Scheme is a country wide crop insurance programme formulated by Government of India and implemented through the Implementing Agency i.e. Agricultural Insurance Company of India with active involvement and co-ordination of various state Government Departments and financial institutions in order to avert the hardship on the livelihood of Indian farmers and their families by crop failure as a result of drought floods attack by pests or disease and similar other natural calamities. This National Agricultural Insurance Scheme operates an Area approach basis. Under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) for a particular notified crop and notified area, threshold yield is fixed on the basis of past five years average yield data compiled by the through crop cutting experiments multiplied by applicable level of indemnity for the crop. Based on the information submitted by the Banker and the prescribed claims settlement methodology, claims are settled to the beneficiary farmers through the Nodal Bank by this opposite party. State Bank of India, Ananthapuramu vide their letter dt.14-09-2009 has forwarded the letter of their Brahmanapalle Branch representing the wrong report of the Village name as Kappalaband instead of Jagarajupalli to which the 2nd opposite party has replied vide letter dt.09-10-2009 highlighting the scheme provisions . As far as the 2nd opposite party is concerned, there is no deficiency of service and the 2nd opposite party had settled all eligible claims based on the declarations received from State Bank of India, Region-5, Tirupathi pertaining Kappalabanda Village , Puttaparthy Mandal for Groundnut (UI)Crop during Kharif 2008 seasons. In case a farmer deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/omissions/commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACS the concerned institutions only shall make good all such losses. Therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs of the 2nd opposite party in the interests of justice.
5. In order to establish the above rivalry contents on behalf of the complainants, K.Bayapa Reddy,2nd complainant is examined as PW1 on behalf of the complainants and placed reliance on Ex.A1 & A2 and on behalf of the opposite parties Sri G.Venkataramana is examined as RW1 and Smt.M.Rajeshwari Sing is examined as RW2 and placed reliance on Ex.B1 to B6 on behalf of the 2nd opposite party.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Now the points that arise for determination are:
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties
1 & 2 ?
3. Whether the complainants are entitled for the amount claimed as prayed for ?
8. POINTS 1 & 2 – In order to establish their respective versions the complainants have relied upon the chief affidavit of P.W.1 and documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A1 is the Legal Notice, Dated: 28-06-2012 issued on behalf of the complainant to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Brahmanapalli Branch, i.e., Opposite Party No.1 and acknowledgment by Ex.A2. On the other hand, on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, the Branch Manager G.Venkataramana – R.W.1 is examined and on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 Smt. M.Rajeshwari Singh – R.W.2 is examined. Further, R.W.2 relied upon Ex.B1 to B6. Ex.B1 is the order copy of F.A.No.506 of 2011 filed before Hon’ble State Commission. Ex.B2 is the scheme guidelines of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. Ex.B3 are the two declarations submitted by the Nodal Bank, SBI, Region – 5, Tirupathi. Ex.B4 is G.O.Rt.No.445, dated: 16.04.2008 of Government of Andhra Pradesh. Ex.B5 is the settlement of crop insurance claims for Kharif 2008 season. Ex.B6 is the Request letter of 1st Opposite Party and AIC Reply.
9. Before going deep into the merits of the case, the admitted facts in the complaint are that the complainants are the resident of Jagarajupalli Village and they are the absolute owners of land to an extent of Acs.5.69 cents Jagarajupalli Village fields and have been raising crops in their lands and obtained a crop loan from the 1st Opposite Party is true. Further, at the time of obtaining the crop loan, the Opposite Party No.1 is deducting the crop insurance premium from the complainants and in turn the said amount was paying by Opposite Party No.1 to the Opposite Party No.2 is also not in dispute. In the year 2008 the complainants obtained the crop loan from Opposite Party No.1, and the Opposite Party No.1 deducted the insurance premium from the complainants and send the same to the Opposite Party No.2 is not in dispute. The Government Officials of the Opposite Party visited the fields and collected the samples and estimated the loss and the crop insurance was announced in the year 2009 is not in dispute. The Jagarajupalli Village farmers are entitled the crop insurance at the rate of 82.74% for “Kharief-2008” is also an admitted fact in the complaint and the complainants are entitled for the said amount and also crop insurance amount @ 38% was credited is also not denied by the Opposite Parties. There is no dispute with regard to the crop loan.
10. In view of the above admitted facts, we have scrutinized the above oral and documentary evidence on either side. On behalf of the complainants the chief affidavit of 2nd complainant K.Bayapa Reddy was filed in the above C.C. and also placed reliance on Ex.A1 and A2. The evidence on chief affidavit of P.W.1 goes to show that “He has obtained crop loan from Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 deducted insurance premium from him and sent the same to Opposite Party No.2”. The above evidence of P.W.1 was not denied by Opposite Parties. But whereas the testimony of R.W.1 G.Venkataramana who has filed chief affidavit on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 i.e., The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Brahmanapalli Village, goes to show that ‘the complainant is put to strict proof of the fact that the crop is raised in the year 2008 and it has been completely failed. ’
11. But the said fact was also admitted by the Opposite Parties in their chief affidavits. The R.W.1 admitted in his chief affidavit that “ the Government Officials of the Opposite Party visited the fields and collected the samples and estimated the loss’. The allegation that crop insurance was announced in the year 2009 is true and the Jagarajupalli Village farmers are entitled for crop insurance @ 82.74% for “Kharief, 2008” is true. The complainants are entitled for the said amount is true. An amount of 38% was credited is also true. The allegation that this Opposite Party promised to rectify the mistake if any is true. In fact the letters were sent to Opposite Party No.2 showing the correct village name and the other particulars. “ The above clear admissions on the part of R.W.1 made it very clear that the mistake committed by Opposite Party No.1 in respect of sending the particulars of percentage of crop insurance amount payable to the complainants is quite clear. Even the evidence on chief affidavit of P.W.1 goes to show that “ as per the news, Jagarajupalli Village farmers are entitled the crop insurance at the rate of 82.74% for ‘Kharief, 2008’. As per the above decision taken by the Government they are entitled to receive the insurance @ 82.74%. But on verifying the accounts, the Opposite Party No.2 credited the crop insurance amount @ 38% instead of 82.74% into her account. Immediately, she approached the Opposite Party No.1 and on verification, it was came into light that the Opposite Party No.1 has committed the mistake in sending the particulars of percentage of crop insurance amount payable to her i.e., 38% instead of 82.74%. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.1 paid the crop insurance amount to her @ 38% instead of 82.74%. The Opposite Party No.1 promised that he would rectify the mistake as early as possible and she believed on the words of the Opposite Party No.1 and waiting for balance insurance amount. “
12. But whereas the evidence on the chief affidavit of R.W.1 goes to show that “ the allegation that Opposite Party No.1 committed mistake in processing the crop loan insurance and failed to pay the amount is not correct. The 2nd Opposite Party is a necessary party and it is alone liable to pay the amount. The allegation that there is gross negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and there is deficiency of service is not correct. The allegation that the complainants have suffered a lot and is entitled to receive the variation amount is not correct. “
13. The above denial on the part of Opposite Party No.1 appears to be very strange, because as per the chief affidavit of R.W.2, who is examined on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 goes to show that “ the complainant is one among those farmers who had received lesser percentage of claim due to the mistake committed by the Opposite Party No.1 in reporting correct notified area and some of these deprived farmers had approached the District Forum by filing C.C.No.04/2011 (total 62 batch cases), the complaint was allowed. The District Forum had acquitted the Opposite Party No.2 and the 1st Opposite Party was made liable to pay the claims, order dated: 15.04.2011, later aggrieved by the orders of Hon’ble District Forum, Anantapuramu, the 1st Opposite Party had filed the appeals (F.A.No.506 of 2011 & 33 others batch cases) before the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad, and the appeals were dismissed and the 1st Opposite Party was made liable, order dated: 27.02.2012 which is Ex.B1 – order copy of F.A.No.506/2011 filed before the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad, this complaint matter is squarely similar to these above adjudicated cases. “ The above evidence on the part of R.W.2 made it very clear that the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad, has already decided on the similar facts in dispute in other cases acquitting the 2nd Opposite Party and 1st Opposite Party was made liable to pay the claims. Inspite of it, again the Opposite Party No.1 has taken a plea in this case that the Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible for the loss sustained by the complainants and Opposite Party No.2 alone is liable to pay the loss to the complainants. But whereas the evidence of R.W.2 on his chief affidavit goes to show that “the complainants had obtained crop loan from Opposite Party No.1 for the groundnut crop raised during Kharief 2008 season and during that period the premium amount was deducted from the complainants account and was remitted to Opposite Party No.2. The complaint was filed on 04.07.2013 i.e., beyond the period of two years of availing the loan and hence barred by limitation’. Further the evidence on chief affidavit of R.W.2 goes to show that “ Kappalabanda is notified as Insurance Unit No.594 and Jagarajupalli is notified as Insurance Unit No.595 as per the Govt. Notification. During Kharif, 2008, for groundnut (unirrigated) crop, for Kappalabanda notified village of Puttaparthy Mandal, the claims were at the rate of 38.87% and for Jagarajupalli notified village of Puttaparthy mandal, the claims were settled at the rate of 82.74%. Accordingly, they (Opposite Party No.2) had settled the claims at the rate of 38.87% to Kappalabanda for the two declarations which were received from State Bank of India, Region – 5, Tirupathi. Out of the claims pertaining to Kappalabanda village of Puttaparthy Mandal amount to Rs.48,12,067-13 for Groundnut (unirrigated) and for Jagarajupalli village of Puttaparthy Mandal amount was NIL for Groundnut (unirrigated) as the Opposite Party No.2 has not received any declarations for Jagarajupalli Village from State Bank of India, Region-5, Tirupathi. The claims were paid to the Bank on 13.01.2010, 31.03.2010 and 30.04.2010 – Ex.B5. Based on the information submitted by the Banker and the prescribed claims settlement methodology, claims are settled to the beneficiary farmers through the Nodal Bank by the Opposite Party No.2’. Further, the evidence on chief affidavit of R.W.2 goes to shows that “ State Bank of India, Anantapuramu, vide their letter dated: 14.09.2009 have forwarded the letter of their Brahmanapalle Branch representing the wrong reporting of the village name as Kappalabanda instead of Jagarajupalli to which the Opposite Party No.2 has replied vide letter dated 09.10.2009 highlighting the scheme provisions as per Ex.B6. The roles and responsibilities of each department are specified in the Scheme under Para-9 of the Operational Modalities – Ex.B2. Under such Para-A roles and responsibilities, the financial institutions have been spelt out. In Page No.17 Point No.5 and the heading Special Conditions for FIs/Nodal Banks/Loan Disbursing Points are as “In case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the Scheme due to errors / omissions / commissions of the Nodal Bank / Branch / PACS, the concerned institutions only shall make good all such losses ”. Further, the evidence on chief affidavit of R.W.2 goes to show that “ in similar cases wherein the farmers were deprived of the compensation due to wrong reporting of village names, the Hon’ble Forum had held that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 and dismissed the case directing the Bankers to pay the losses. “
14. There is no rebuttal evidence on the part of R.W.1 to that of the evidence on the chief affidavits of P.W.1 as well as R.W.2 with regard to mistake committed by Opposite Party No.1 in sending the particulars of percentage of crop insurance amount payable to the complainant i.e., 38% instead of 82.74%. Though R.W.1 denied the same in his chief affidavit, but at the same time the documentary evidence Ex.B6 supports the version of the complainant as well as R.W.2 in the said regard. Not only that, even R.W.1 also at one point of time in his chief affidavit admits that “In fact the letter were sent to Opposite Party No.2 showing the correct village names and other particulars’. The above evidence of R.W.1 is nothing but an admission on the part of R.W.1 in sending the particulars of the percentage earlier wrongly to Opposite Party No.2. So only he made a request to Opposite Party No.2 under Ex.B6 and for that the Opposite Party No.2 has given reply by regretting that their case cannot be considered at that stage (after lapse of more than 6 months) after the claims for the season have been approved and further they have brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 in the said letter itself the special conditions for Financial Institutions envisaged in the scheme guidelines as shown in Ex.B2 that in case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme, it is provided in special condition No.5 that “ In case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the Scheme due to errors/omissions/commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACS, the concerned institutions only shall make good all such losses. “ So as per the above such conditions for Financial Institutions even in the scheme guidelines as shown in Ex.B2, the concerned Institution in this case is nothing but Opposite Party No.1. The duty caste on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 in sending the particulars of percentage of crop insurance amount payable to each beneficiary farmers as per the announcement of the crop insurance made by the Government pertaining in the year 2009. According to the Government the crop insurance was given to Jagarajupalli Village is @ 82.74%. Admittedly, the complainant belongs to Jagarajupalli Village, there is no dispute in it. But the Opposite Party No.1 paid the crop insurance amount @ 38% instead of 82.74%, there lies the mistake on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and deficiency of service. Even the Opposite Party No.1 also noticed the mistake and to rectify the same, it made efforts also and it is evidenced as per the correspondence under Ex.B6 made to Opposite Party No.2. Inspite of it, the Opposite Party No.1 has taken a different plea in this case that there is no mistake on the part of Opposite Party No.1 in the said regard for the loss sustained by the complainant and Opposite Party No.2 alone is liable for the same. But whereas Opposite Party No.2 has taken a plea in this case that Opposite Party No.2 is not liable for the loss sustained by the complainants and Opposite Party No.1 alone is liable. The said contention of Opposite Party No.2 was sustained by the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad, in previous judgments, which are similar to the facts of this case, which was evidenced as per Ex.B1. But there is no satisfactory explanation on the part of Opposite Party No.1 in this case while sending the particulars of percentage of crop insurance amount to Opposite Party No.2. But surprisingly Opposite Parties 1 & 2 both have taken a similar plea in this case that the complaint is barred by limitation.
15. No doubt as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sec.24 (a) provides limitation period for filing of complaint i.e., within two years from the date of which the cause of action as arisen. As per the evidence of R.W.2 they have credited the amount to the Bank on 13.01.2010, 31.03.2010 and 30.04.2010 as per Ex.B5, but the complaint is filed in the year 2013. The complainants K.Lakshmi Reddy and K.Bayapa Reddy lands belong to Jagarajupalli Village and they are farmers. The background of the complainant cannot be ignored, while deciding the plea of limitation in this case. The facts and circumstances of this case should be taken into consideration totally before deciding the point of limitation.
16. It is known fact that the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme is a country wide crop insurance programme formulated by Government of India and implemented through implementing agency i.e., Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited with active involvement and coordination of various State Government Departments and Financial Institutions in order to avert the hardship on the livelihood of Indian farmers and their families by crop failure as a result of draught, floods, attack by pests or disease and similar other natural calamities. The complainants are the victims for such natural calamities as their lands belong to Jagarajupalli Village where the crops failed on that particular concerned year and it was also estimated by the officials of the Government and the Government has announced the crop insurance amount @ 82.74% for Jagarajupalli Village farmers and 38% for Kappalabanda Village farmers. Inspite of it, unfortunately, the benefits of such crop insurance scheme was not received by the complainant, because of the mistake done by Opposite Party No.1 in sending the percentage of particulars correctly to Opposite Party No.2. Because of the mistake done by Opposite Party No.1, the complainant has received only 38% of crop insurance amount instead of 82.74% for no fault on her part. Inspite of it, the complainants made efforts by approaching Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 promised that he would rectify the mistake as early as possible. So naturally the complainants might have believed the words of Opposite Party No.1 and waiting for balance insurance amount. The said contention of the complainants cannot be denied in view of Ex.B6 because of Opposite Party No.1’s correspondence with Opposite Party No.2 by sending the amended declaration forms of Kharief – 2008. Wherein it is clearly mentioned that the “ revenue village was erroneously mentioned, kindly arrange to do the needful in the matter and oblige for inclusion in the regular claims for that year as a special case. “ But the said request of Opposite Party No.1 was not obliged by Opposite Party No.2 in view of the special conditions as laid down under Ex.B2. Even the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad, also placed liability on Opposite Party No.1 alone for the loss sustained by the concerned farmers and Opposite Party No.2 was not liable to pay the same. In this background of the said facts and circumstances, it appears that the plea of law of limitation taken by Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 in this case not appears to be correct. No doubt the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 placed reliance on number of decisions i.e.,
1. 2009 (2) CPJ, Page No.29, Supreme Court.
2. 2009 (3) CPJ, Page No.75, Supreme Court
3. 2011 (4) CPJ, Page No.210, National Commission.
4. 2011 (1) CPJ, Page No.172, Orissa State Commission.
But the facts and circumstances of the above said citations are entirely different to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In this case it is primary duty on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 to oblige the Government declaration of the crop insurance to the eligible farmers as per the percentage declared by the Government, whether the eligible farmer approaches the Opposite Party No.1 personally or not? It is the duty of Opposite Party No.1 to send the correct list of the subscribers from whom it has received the premium to Opposite Party No.2. It is an admitted fact that the complainants are the subscribers in Opposite Party No.1 – Bank and the said subscription of complainants were sent by Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No.2. The said fact was not denied by either Opposite Party No.1 or Opposite Party No.2. So, in the said circumstances, denying the profit given by the Government to the complainants on point of limitation in this case is not appears to be justifiable, because it is not the duty of the complainants to approach Opposite Party No.2 personally for the claim, because Opposite Party No.2 will be acted only on the basis on the list sent by Opposite Party No.1 alone. But Opposite Party No.1 has committed a grave mistake by sending percentage particulars to the opposite party No.2 because of the said mistake of Opposite Party No.1, the complainants were deprived of the benefit given by the Government. One should not forgot the mental agony suffered by the poor farmer in draught conditions when the crop failed. Apart from the said mental agony, the complainants have suffered more mental agony because of non-availability of the crop insurance benefit given by the Government in such draught conditions because of the mistake done by Opposite Party No.1.
17. So taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, the case of the complainants have to be taken as a special case considering the background of the complainants and the circumstances which made them to suffer all these days for no fault on the part of the complainants and finally approached the District Forum for the relief. It appears to be surprised in this case, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 both admits the loss sustained by the complainants, but both are taking a plea that this complaint is barred by limitation and both of them are shifting their liability on either side. But in the similar set of facts in the earlier decisions, the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad, decided the case fixing the liability on Opposite Party No.1 alone instead of Opposite Party No.2. So, the said preposition of law is applicable even in this case also, because the facts and circumstances of the earlier decisions in C.C.No.04/2011 (total 62 batch cases) are similar. There is an obligation on the part of Opposite Party No.1 to comply the directions of the Government, while sanctioning the crop loan. That duty was violated by Opposite Party No.1. So, it has to compensate to the aggrieved party. Approach of the complainants’ number of times to Opposite Party No.1 seeking relief and making requests in the said regard again and again cannot be denied, because of Ex.B6. So, in this context, the learned counsel for complainants submitted at the time of arguments that “ because of the assurance given by Opposite Party No.1 alone the complainants waited for a long time with a fond hope of getting relief from the Opposite Party No.1, but the circumstances forced the complainants to approach the Forum and spending huge amount on the litigation, though the complainants are poor farmers, because the assurance was not kept up by Opposite Party No.1. So, finally the complainants were constrained to approach this Forum, but unfortunately Opposite Party No.1 is taking a false plea that the complaint is barred by limitation only to escape its liability. In fact there is continuation of cause of action in this case because the mental agony suffered by complainants is continued from the date of receipt of part of the crop insurance amount instead of full amount @ 82.74% and even still the complainants are suffering the said mental agony. Hence, this complaint is not barred by limitation as it is a continuous cause of action.”
18. The above arguments of the learned counsel for the complainants cannot be ruled out completely because of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above. Hence, we did not find any merits in the contentions of Opposite Party No.1 since there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1.
19. POINT NO.3 - In the result, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Party No.1 with a direction to Opposite Party No.1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.11,185/- towards balance insurance amount and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of order, thereafter @ 6% p.a. on the principal amount till the date of realization. The complaint is dismissed against the Opposite Party No.2, but no costs in the circumstances.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 24th day of November, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EVIDENCE ON CHIEF AFFIDAVITS
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
PW1 – K.Bayapa Reddy, 2nd complainant. RW1 - Sri G.Venkataramana, Branch Manager of
State Bank of India, Brahmanapalli Village,
Puttaparthy Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.
Rw2 - Smt.M.Rajeshwari Singh, Chief Manager, AIC
Of India, Hyderabad.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 – Office copy of legal notice got issued by the complainants to the 1st opposite
party.
Ex.A2 – Postal acknowledgment signed by the 1st opposite party.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2
EX.B1 - Order of the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission, Hyderabad dt.27-02-2012 in
59 appeals.
Ex.B2 - Attested copy of Booklet of Scheme & Guidelines of National Agricultural
Insurance Scheme of Agricultural Insurance Co. of India Ltd.,
Ex.B3 - Attested copies of two Declaration Forms –Loanee Farmers sent by the 1st
opposite party-Bank to General Insurance Corporation of India, Hyderabad.
Ex.B4 - Attested copy of notification in GO RT.No.445 dt.16-04-2008 with regard to
Implementation of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme.
Ex.B5 - Attested copy of letter dt.30-04-2010 sent by the 2nd opposite party to the
State Bank of India, Region-5, Tirupati.
Ex.B6 - Attested copy of letter dt.09-10-2009 sent by the 2nd opposite party to the
State Bank of India, Region-5, Tirupati.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
Typed by JPNN
