Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/122/2017

H.Rajanna S/o Halappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Pragathi krishna Gramina Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Y.V.Lohithashwa

01 Sep 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON :24/11/2017

               DISPOSED ON:01/09/2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 122/2017 DATED:1st SEPTEMBER 2018

 

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

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

                                BSc., MBA., DHA.,

LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINANT/S	H.Rajanna S/o Halappa, Puralahally Village, Challkere Tq, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Smt/Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao,  Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Branch Manager,Pragathi krishna Gramina Bank, Merrasabhihally Branch,Challkere Taluk, Chitradurga Dist.   2. The Branch Manager, Rural Agricultural Insurance, TATA AIG General insurance Co.ltd., 15th floor, Peninsula Business park, GK Marg, Lower parel, Mumbai-400013.   (Rep by Smt/Sri.A.M. Rudrumuni,  Advocate for OP No.1 and Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate for OP No.2)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH: PRESIDENT

ORDER

The complainant has been filed this complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the opposite parties to direct the OPs to payRs.9,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a, Rs.10,000/- towards costs and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that, he is having agricultural land bearing sy.No.22 measuring 30-acres 12-guntas situated at Purlahalli village, Challakere taluk.  Out of the said land he has sowed ground nut in sy.No.22/1AP3 measuring 3-acres 39-guntas and sy.No.22/1AP4 by investing huge amount towards seeds, manure, fertilizers and labour charges and obtained crop insurance to his crop and remitted a sum of Rs.5,726-51 and Rs.4,310-06 to the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 while sending the proposal to OP No.2, the OP No.1 has sent the proposal by stating that the complainant has cropped onion instead of ground nut and accordingly, the complainant has received Rs.8,939-00 and Rs.6,727-00 towards crop insurance amount under PMFBY for onion crop.  It is further submitted that, the adjacent farmer  by name Thippeswamy who has owned and cropped ground nut in his land to the extent of 2-acres 20-guntas has received Rs.1,37,000/- from No.2 towards failure of  crop under PMFBY.  He never cropped onion in his land and he is growing only ground nut regularly.  Moreover, the OP No.1 has collected more insurance amount i.e., excess of Rs.8,500/- than that of actual insurance premium amount from the complainant, it clearly shows that, the OPs are held liable to pay compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- to the complainant.    The cause of action for this complaint arose on 25.09.2017, when the complainant issued legal notice 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. A.M. Rudrumuni, Advocate and filed version and Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and filed version. 

According to the version filed by OP No.1, it is false to state that, the complainant has cropped only ground nut in sy No.22/1AP3 to an extent of 3-acres 39-guntas and sy.No.22/1AP4 to an extent of 3-acres 05-guntas.  But it is admitted that, the complainant has paid insurance premium of Rs.5,726-51 and Rs.4,310-06 towards insurance for the onion crop and he has availed loan from OP No.1 for growing onion crop in his land.  It is false to state that the OP No.1 has sent proposals by stating that, the complainant has cropped onion crop instead of ground nut.  As per the application given by the complainant and as per the loan issued by the Bank, the OP No.1 has collected insurance premium towards the onion crop and the same has been sent to the OP No.2.  The complainant has renewed his loan dated 28.09.2015 for growing onion crop and the premium has been remitted to onion crop only, the same has been sent to the OP No.2 through online on 09.07.2016 and the application is acknowledged by the OP No.2.  On the basis of report of the Joint Director of Agricultural Department and Revenue Authority, the OP No.2 settled the claim of the complainant, the same is to be settled by the OP No.2 and not by this OP No.1.  there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and the complainant is not entitled for any amount from the OP No.1.  The OP No.1has received the notice from the complainant and replied the same accepting the premium and settlement of the claims lies with the OP No.2 and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

  

OP No.2 filed version denying all the averments made in the complaint.  It is submitted that, it is not aware of the fact that, the complainant is an agriculturist and he owns lands to an extent of 30 acres 12 guntas situated at Purlahalli village, Challakere Taluk and regularly he is sowing ground nut in his lands and he is having rain fed lands.  It is not aware of the fact that, the adjacent land owner one Thippeswamy has owned 2-acres 20-guntas of land and grown ground nut crop and due to failure of crop, he has received Rs.1,37,000/- from OP No.2.  It is to be proved by the complainant that, he never sowed onion in his land and he is regularly growing ground nut.  The OP No.2 has not made any deficiency of service and it has paid the insurance amount to the complainant i.e., Rs.5,726-71 and Rs.4,310-06 respectively as per the shortfall of rain during the period through NEFT as per the norms of the guidelines.    Hence, OP No.2 is not liable to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on documents Ex A-1 to A-11 and closed his side. OP No.1 has examined one Sri. C. Nagaraj, the Manager as DW-1, OP No.2 has examined one Sri. Alok Kumar Gupta, the Zonal Claims Manager as DW-2 and no 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 and further OP No.2 is liable to pay the crop insurance under PMBFY and entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint?

 

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.  The said person had paid the crop insurance premium amount to the OP No.1 and in turn, the OP No.1 send the same to OP No.2. While sending the proposal, the OP No.1 mentioned the crop as onion instead of ground nut.  It is pertinent to note that, regularly the complainant was growing ground nut (rainfed).   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, the OP No.2 is liable to pay the insurance amount.  The complainant has send legal notice to the OPs but, they have not given any reply and not settled the claim towards loss of crop.  Then the complainants have filed this complaint.  After hearing the arguments addressed by both the sides, the Advocate for the complainant states that, OP No.1 has collected the premium amount and the same has been sent to the OP No.2 Insurance Company.  But the crop mentioned as onion instead of ground nut (rainfed).  The Advocate for OP No.1 stated that, it is true that, the complainant has paid the premium amount through his account and send the same to OP No.2.  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 for ground nut and the OP No.1 has send the proposal mentioning the crop as onion, the same has been settled as per the norms of the guidelines. 

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 send 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 send 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 as the land of complainant is not an irrigated land, it is only a dry land.  When the land is dry land, the onion crop could not be grown.  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 farmer, it is its bounden duty to settle the insurance amount if the crop failed. 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/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

 

It is ordered that the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,85,065/- to the complainant towards compensation along with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of receiving the premium amount till realization.  

It is further ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. 

Complaint filed as against OP No.1 is hereby dismissed.

It is further ordered that, the OP No. 2 is 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 01/09/2018 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. C. Nagaraj, the Manager by filing affidavit evidence.

DW-2:- Sri. Alok Kumar Gupta, the Zonal Claims Manager by filing affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Legal Notice dated 25.09.2017
02	Ex-A-2:-	Letter dated 09.10.2017 to the Advocate for complainant by OP No.2
03	Ex-A-3:-	Bank Pass Book of complainant
04	Ex.A-4:-	Statement of Account
05	Ex.A-5:-	Legal notice dated 16.10.2017
06	Ex.A-6:-	Adhar Card of complainant
07	Ex.A-7:-	Proposal form
08	Ex-A-8:-	3 postal receipts
09	Ex.A-9:-	2 postal acknowledgements
10	Ex.A-10:-	11 R of Rs belongs to complainant

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Rhr.