Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/141/2018

U.Sharanamma W/o late Umapathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao

12 Apr 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON :21/07/2018

               DISPOSED ON:12/04/2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

CC. NO. 141/2018 DATED:12th APRIL 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :    PRESIDENT                            B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

                                BSc., MBA., DHA.,

LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINANT/S

U.Sharanamma W/o Late Umapathi, Aged about 40 years, R/o Bukkambudi Village, D.R Halli post, Thaluk Hobli, Challkere Taluk, Chitradurga Dist.   (Rep by Smt/Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao,  Advocate)

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Jayalakshmi Complex, Bangalore-Bellary Road, Challakere, Chitradurga Dist.   2. The Regional Manager, TATA AIG general insurance co ltd., 3rd floor, JP & Devi Jambugeshwar Orchade, No:69, Millar Road, Bangalore-560052   3. The Branch Manger-Claims Rural Agricultural Insurance, TATA AIG General Insurance Co.ltd., A-501,5th floor, Building No:4, Infinity IT Park, Dindoshi,  Malad(East)Mumbai-400097   (Dismissed as per order dated 25.10.2018)   (Rep by Smt/Sri.C.K. Sudarshan, Advocate for OP No.1 and Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate for OP No.2)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH: PRESIDENT

ORDER

The complainants in all the cases have been filed the above complaints U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the opposite parties to direct the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earning, mental agony, cost and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that, she is an agriculturist by profession owning 3-acres of land in sy.No.37/P3 situated at Bukkambudi village, Talku Hobli, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District.  In the said land, the complainant is cultivating caster/maize. The complainant insured the caster crop under PMFBY during 2016-17.  The OP NO.1 has collected an amount towards insurance premium of Rs.607-05 for the above said land on 01.08.2016 vide proposal No.870110 under PMFBY for tourdal.  Due to failure of rainfall, the said crop has been completely failed and as such the complainant has to receive insurance amount under PMFBY Scheme.  The complainant has approached the OP No.1 and Agricultural Department several times personally and also through letter correspondence, but the claim of the complainant has not been settled, which is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  The OP No.1 has sent the premium amount to OP No.2 within the time, but the OPs have not paid the insurance amount to the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs on 14.06.2018, the same has been served to OPs, but they failed to reply to the same or to pay the insurance amount to the complainant.  The cause of action for these complaints arose 14.06.2018 when the legal notice has been received by the OPs, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and prayed for allow the complaint. 

3.     After issuance of the notice to the OPs, OP No.1 appeared through Sri.C.K.Sudarshan, Advocate and Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and filed their version. 

According to the version filed by OP No.1, it is false to state that, the OP No.1 has collected the crop insurance for caster seeds of Rs.607-05 for 03-acres under PMFBY Scheme vide proposal No.870110 and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is further false to state that, due to failure of rain, the crop has been completely failed.  It is further false to state that, she approached and orally requested and also through letter to the Bank authorities and Agricultural Department is false and put to strict proof of the same.  It is submitted that, the OP No.1 has collected the crop insurance for caster seeds of Rs.607-05 under PMFBY Scheme vide and sent the same to insurance company and acknowledged the same.  Such being the case, the question of dereliction of duties and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 does not arise.  The OP No.1 has sent the amount to the authorities through Universal Sompo General Insurance Co., Ltd., and the same is the necessary party to this complaint and this complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has not produced even a single document to show that, she had put caster seeds/maize in her land in the year 2016-17 and not produced any document with regard to failure of rain for the above said period.  In the event of awarding any amount to the complainant, the same is liable to be paid by OP No.2 and 3 and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint against OP No.1.

OP No.2 filed version denying all the averments made in the complaints.  It is submitted that, the OP No.2 is not aware of the facts that, the complainant is the owner of the lands as stated in the complaint, which are rain fed lands and the averments of the complainant are denied as false the same is put to strict proof of the same.  This OP is not aware of the facts that, the OP No.1 has collected insurance premium amount towards PMFBY and the insured value as stated in the complaint from the complainant, the same are denied as false and put to strict proof of the same.  It is not known that, the Bukkamboodi village, Talak Hobli, Challakere Taluk did not receive adequate rainfall and there was a drought in the region and the crops were failed and the complainant have suffered severe loss due to crop failure and also as per the Government survey the entire crop was failed and the same is denied as false.  It is not known that, the complainant has approached OP No.1 and in turn OP No.1 assured to release the insurance amount to the complainant and the same are denied as false and put to strict proof of the same.  The OP No.2 is not aware of the fact that, the complainant has issued legal notice on 14.06.2018 through their counsel and the same were delivered on OP No.2 and it is not known to this OP that, the complainant has paid the premium amount towards PMFBY Scheme.  The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands as required under C.P Act and law of insurance under M.V Act for the following reasons.

That if at all the above proposal of the complainant was accepted by the OP No.1, but the same was not forwarded to the OP No.2 and they are still pending at Bank’s end and hence, the OP No.2 has failed to submit the said proposals even on the extended date i.e., 12^th December 2016, not only that the proposal was not forwarded by the OP No.1 to OP No.2 but also the stated application of the complainant was not shared by the OP No.1 with OP No.2 and the said application was still pending with the OP No.1 and therefore, on non submission of the application form and premium amount in favour of the complainant, OP No.2 is not liable for any payment or compensation to the complainant.  It is submitted that, the premium debit cutoff date was 10^th August 2016 and Banks were suppose to send all the proposals within 15^th August 2016, but with the directions of department as the portal was introduced for the first time the proposal acknowledgement date was extended till 8^th December 2016.  OP No.2 had to close acceptance of proposals and further any kind of alteration/change in date was not possible as it would have caused in adverse effect on selection of proposal, hence OP No.2 is not liable for payment of compensation to the complainants in all the cases.  As per the operational guidelines and tender notification of the Government, any pending data with the banks which was forwarded to insurance company after 08.12.2016 are still pending with the Banks, therefore any claim regarding these applications cannot be accepted by the insurance company and accordingly any liability towards claim settlement falls on the OP No.1 and hence, in view of all the above said reasons, OP No.2 has not made any deficiency in service to the complainants in all the cases and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaints against OP No.2.  

4. Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on documents Ex A-1 to A-8 and closed her side. OP No.1 has examined one Sri. T. Joshua, the Manager and PA Holder as DW-1 and Sri. Krishna Sheernalli, as DW-2 Ex.B-1 and B-3 documents have been got marked and closed their side.

 

5. Heard the arguments.

 

6.     Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:-

 

Point No.1:-Whether the complainant proves that, the OP No.1 has send the proposal form to the OP No.2 in time and further OP No.2 is liable to pay the crop insurance under PMBFY and entitled for the reliefs as prayed in all the complaints?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

 

        7. Our findings on the above points are as follows.

 

                Point No.1:-Partly Affirmative.

                Point No.2:- As per the final order.

::REASONS::

 

8. Point No. 1:-It is not in dispute that the complainant is having agricultural land as stated above and insured the crop sown by paying insurance premium amount to the OP No.1 and in turn, the OP No.1 sends the same to OP No.2.  It is pertinent to note that, regularly the complainant was growing caster seeds/maize crops in her land as stated in the complaint.  During Khariff 2016-17 season, the complainant has insured the crops under PMFBY Scheme by paying premium amount to the OP No.2 through OP No.1.  Due to failure of rain, the crop was failed. OP No.1 says that, they have collected the premium amount and send the same to OP No.2 insurance company within time as fixed by the Government, the OP No.2 and 3 are liable to pay the insurance amount to the complainant.  The complainant has sent legal notice to the OPs for payment of insurance amount, but the OPs have not given any reply or settled the claim towards loss of crop.  Then the complainant has filed the complaint.  It is argued by the Advocate for the complainant that, OP No.1 has collected the premium amount from the complainant and the same has been sent to the OP No.2 Insurance Company.  The Advocate for OP No.1 stated that, it is true that, the complainant has paid the premium amount and send the same to OP No.2 within the time fixed by the Government.  The Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.2 submits that, it is not correct to state that, the OP No.1 has send the insurance premium within time and the premium collected from the complainant is still pending with the OP No.1, therefore, they are not liable to pay the compensation. 

9.    We have gone through the entire documents filed by both the parties, it clearly shows that, the complainant has paid the premium amount to the OP No.1 and in turn, the OP No.1 sends the same to OP No.2 well in time.  As per the exhibits produced by the complainant, it clearly shows that, the OP No.1 has sent the premium amount to the OP No.2.  As per the acknowledgement produced by the OP No.1, it clearly shows that, the OP No.2 has collected the premium amount from the OP No.1.  Here the OP No.2 has committed deficiency of service in settling the crop insurance amount to the complainant.  Hence, the OP No.2 is liable to pay the insurance amount to the complainant.  Once, the insurance company collected the premium amount from the farmers, it is its bounden duty to settle the insurance amount to the complainant.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 held as affirmative. 

 

10.   Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein, we pass the following:

 

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/sec. 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

It is ordered that the OP No.2 and 3 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.  

 It is further ordered that, the OP No.2 and 3 are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. 

Complaint filed as against OP No.1 is dismissed.

It is further ordered that, the OP No. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Lady Member after the correction of the draft on 12/04/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signature)

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:-Complainant by filing affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- Sri. T. Joshua, the Manager/Pa Holder of OP No.1 by filing affidavit evidence.

DW-2:-  Sri. Krishna Sheernalli, by filing affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Broacher under PMFBY
02	Ex-A-2:-	R of R
03	Ex-A-3:-	Check Status
04	Ex.A-4:-	Statement of Account
05	Ex.A-5:-	Letter by the OP Bank dated 30.06.2018
06	Ex.A-6:-	Legal Notice dated 14.06.2018
07	Ex.A-7 & 8:-	Postal receipt and Postal acknowledgement

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1 & 2:-	Check Status
02	Ex-B-3:-	Statement of account

 

 

LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Rhr.