Date of filing : 03-09-2011
Date of Disposal: 06-06-2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L.,Male Member
Kum. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday, the 6th day of June, 2012
C.C.NO. 142 /2011
Between:
1. K.V.S.Chowdary
S/o Late K.Venkatesu
2. Smt.K.Subhadramma
W/o K.V.S.Chowdary
Both are Agriculturists, residents of
Mamillakunta Village, Puttaparthy Mandal.
Anantapur District. …. Complainants
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Brahmanapalli Branch,
Puttaparthy Mandal.
Anantapur District.
2. The Divisional Manager,
Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd.,
General Insurance Corporation of India
8th floor, United Towers, Basheer Bagh
Hyderabad. … Opposite parties.
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri B.Viswanath, advocate for the complainants and Sri N.R.K.Mohan and Sri A.Suresh Kumar, advocates for the 1st opposite party 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 of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, Male Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 to direct them to pay Rs.15,211-60 as crop insurance variation amount to be paid @ 44.74%, Rs.8,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards legal expenses with costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: -The complainants 1 & 2 are husband and wife and they are permanent residents of Mamillakunta Village of Puttaparthy Mandal and they are the absolute owners of the complaint schedule property. In the year 2008 the complainants obtained the crop loan from the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party deducted the insurance premium from the complainant and sent the same to the 2nd opposite party. The complainants raised Groundnut crop for the year 2008, but the Groundnut crop of the complainant completely failed. Before harvesting the Groundnut crop, the Government estimated the loss and announced the crop insurance @ 82.74% to the Jagarajupalli Villagers. Accordingly Jagarajupalli Revenue Village farmers are entitled for a crop insurance @ 82.74% for Kharief 2008. As per the above decision taken by the Government, the complainants are entitled to receive the crop insurance @ 82.74%. The lands of the complainants are within the Village fields of Jagarajupalli Village and they are entitled to the insurance amount. But the 1st opposite party wrongly noted the Village name as Kappalabanda instead of Jagarajupalli and paid 38% of the crop insurance amount to the complainants. The complainants approached the opposite parties and requested them to pay the difference of insurance amount, but the opposite parties postponed the same on one pretext or the other. The complainants came to know that about 35 days back this Forum was pleased to direct the opposite parties to pay the difference of 44.75% of the insurance amount to them and approached the opposite parties and requested to pay the difference of insurance amount, but they did not care to pay the same. Hence, the complainants got issued a legal notice on 16-07-2011 to the 1st opposite party demanding to pay the difference of 44.75% insurance and the said notice was served on the 1st opposite party. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of both opposite parties. Due to the attitude of the 1st opposite party, the complainants sustained loss of Rs.15,211/- and the complainants are entitled to receive the same from the opposite parties 1 & 2, Rs.8,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards legal expenses. Hence, prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay the amount as claimed in the complaint with costs of the complaint.
3. The 1st opposite party filed counter and contended that this opposite party is acting as an agent of the 2nd opposite party and the crop insurance business is exclusively done by the 2nd opposite party. This opposite party remitting the amount to the complainants out of the loan amount only in an representative capacity of the 2nd opposite party and so no liability can be fixed against this opposite party. The 2nd opposite party has collected premium from the complainants and insured the crop. So it is the 2nd opposite party, which has to pay the amount and not this opposite party. It is only a mistake in mentioning the correct name of the Village at the time of sending the consolidated premium amount and subsequently the mistake was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party. Thus there is no negligence on the part of this opposite party. Therefore, this opposite party is not liable to pay the amount as claimed in the complaint and that therefore, complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed counter and contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and this opposite party had settled all eligible claims based on the declarations received from State Bank of India, Region-5, Tirupathi pertaining to Kappala Banda Village of Puttaparthy Mandal basing on the report received from the State Bank of India, Puttparthy (M) for Groundnut (UI) Crop during Kharief 2008 season. As per the provisions of the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, the Government had entrusted roles and responsibilities to various Departments for the implementation of the scheme. The roles and responsibilities of each department are specified in the scheme under para 9 of the Operational Modalities and under sub para (A) the roles and responsibilities of Financial Institutions have been spelt out. In page No.17, point No.5 under heading Special Conditions for FI’s/Nodal Banks/Loan Disbursing Points is as under. 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. Therefore, this opposite party is not liable to pay the amount as claimed in the complaint to the complainant. This opposite party denied the other averments mentioned in the complaint and contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2? If so, whether the complainants are entitled in respect of the amount claimed in the complaint as prayed for from the opposite parties 1 & 2?
2. To what relief?
6. To prove the case of the complainants, the 1st complainant has filed the evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A3 documents. On behalf of the 1st opposite party, the evidence on affidavit of the 1st opposite party has been filed and no documents have been marked. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, the evidence on affidavit of the 2nd opposite party has been filed and marked Exs.B1 to B6 documents.
7. Heard both sides.
8. POINT NO.1:- It is an admitted fact that the complainants obtained crop loan for the Kharief Season 2008 from the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party has deducted insurance premium from the loan amount of the complainants and remitted the same to the 2nd opposite party, who is the insurer. It is also an admitted fact that the complainants raised Groundnut Crop in her land, which is situated within the limits of Jagarajupalli Village fields. It is also an admitted fact that the crop loss insurance in respect of Groundnut Crop raised in the lands of the complainants, which is situated within the limits of Jagarajupalli Village fields during the Kharief Season 2008 was declared @ 82.736% by the Government and accordingly the loanees, who have obtained crop loan from the Banks and raised Groundnut Crop in their lands within the limits of Jagarajupalli Village fields were paid crop loss insurance amount to an extent of 82.736% of their loan amount. It is also an admitted fact that the complainants, who raised the Groundnut crop in their lands within the limits of Jagarajupalli Village, has been paid crop insurance amount @ 38% only instead of 82.736%.
9. As per Ex.B6 order copy of this Forum in C.C.No.04/2011 dt.15-04-2011, we are of the view that the 1st opposite party has committed mistake by wrongly mentioning that the lands of the complainants are situated within the Village limits of Kappalabanda instead of correctly mentioning that the lands of the complainants are situated within the limits of Jagarajupalli Village.
10. The 1st opposite party in the counter as well as in the evidence on affidavit has stated that it is only a mistake in mentioning the correct name of the Village at the time of sending the consolidated premium amount and it is subsequently brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party with regard to the said mistake. Thus, it clearly goes to prove the fact that the 1st opposite party has wrongly furnished the particulars of the lands of the complainant to the 2nd opposite party that the lands of the complainant are situated within the limits of Kappalabanda Village instead of correctly mentioning that the lands of the complainant are situated within the limits of Jagarajupalli Village fields. Since the Government has declared 38% of crop loss in respect of the Groundnut crop raised within the Village limits of Kappalabanda and the 2nd opposite party being insurer has paid 38% of insurance amount to the 1st opposite party-Bank so as to remit the said percentage of the crop loss to the insured loanees, who have insured their Groundnut crop raised within the limits of Kappalabanda Village. Since the 1st opposite party has wrongly mentioned that the complainants’ lands are situated within the limits of KappalabandaVillage instead of correctly mentioning that the lands of the complainant are situated within the limits of Jagarajupalli Village. Hence, the 2nd opposite party has only paid 38% of the crop loss in respect of the Groundnut crop raised by the complainant to the 1st opposite party, who in turn has remitted the said amount to the complainants’ loan account. If the 1st opposite party has correctly mentioned that the lands of the complainants are situated within the limits of Jagarajupalli Village and since the crop loss in respect of the Groundnut crop raised within the limits of Jagarajupalli Village was declared for Kharief Season 2008 @ 82.736%, then the 2nd opposite party being insurer would have paid to the 1st opposite party @ 82.736% of crop loss with a direction to remit the said amount to the complainants loan account. But on account of the mistake committed by the 1stopposite party for wrongly mentioning that the lands of the complainants are situated within the limits of Kappalabanda Village, therefore, the 2nd opposite party has only paid @ 38% of the crop loss to the 1st opposite party so as to remit the said crop loss amount to the credit of the complainants’ loan account. Thus, there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the 1stopposite party with regard to furnishing of the correct particulars of the lands of the complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
11. Special Conditions for FI’s/Nodal Banks/Loan Disbursing Points, clause 5 says:
“In case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/omissions/commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branches/PACS, the concerned institutions only shall make good all such losses”.
12. In view of the said clause, the 1st opposite party alone is liable to pay to the complainants the difference of crop loss percentage amount as claimed in the complaint by the complainants as the mistake has been committed by the 1st opposite party while furnishing the particulars of the lands of the complainants.
13. Therefore, on considering the said facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party only, but not on the part of the 2ndopposite party. Therefore, the 1st opposite is liable to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 15,211-60 towards balance crop loss insurance amount @ 44.74% since the complainants were only paid crop loss insurance amount @ 38% instead of paying at 82.74% for crop loss during the Kharief Season 2008. Further the complainants are also entitled for Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony suffered by them on account of deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party as the complainants were not paid the actual declared percentage of crop loss insurance amount with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of declaration of crop loss for the Kharief Season 2008 till the date of realization. Since there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party hence, the 2nd opposite party is not liable to pay the said amount to the complainant. Accordingly this point is answered.
14. POINT NO.2:- In the result, the complaint filed by the complainants is allowed and the 1st opposite party is liable to pay to the complainants the crop loss insurance amount of Rs.15,211-60 and also Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony with interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amounts from the date of declaration of crop loss for the Kharief Season 2008 till the date of realization with costs of Rs.2,000/-. The 1st opposite party shall pay the said amounts to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. The complaint against the 2nd opposite party is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 6th day of June, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES:
-NIL- - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS
Ex.A1 – Attested copy of Pattadar Pass Book relating to 2nd complainant issued by the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothacheruvu.
Ex.A2 – Office copy of legal notice dt.16-07-2011 got issued by the complainants to the
1st opposite party.
Ex.A3 - Postal acknowledgment signed by the 1st opposite party.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
- NIL -
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2
Ex.B1 - Photo copy of Schemes & Guidelines Booklet issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.B2 - Photo copy of Declaration Form-Loanee Farmers submitted by the State Bank
of India, Tirupati to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.B3 - Photo copy of notification relating to the Villages and crops issued by the
Principal Secretary to Government, Govt. of A.P.
Ex.B4 - Photo copy of letter dt.30-04-2010 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the State
Bank of India, Tirupati.
Ex.B5- Photo copy of dt.09-10-2009 issued by the 2nd opposite party to State Bank of India,
Regional Business Unit,Tirupati.
Ex.B6- Photo copy of order in C.C.No.04/2011 dt.15-04-2011 passed by this Forum.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
