Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/146/2017

H.Siddesha S/o Hanumanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

01 Sep 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON :28/12/2017

               DISPOSED ON:01/09/2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

CC. NO. 143/2017 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

A.Chidanandappa,  S/o Ajjappa, Aged about 55 Years, Meerasabhihally Village, Challkere Taluk, 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.   3. The Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance co.ltd., A-501,5th Floor, Building No:4,Infinity IT Park, Dindoshi, Malad(East),Mumbai-400097(deleted)   (Rep by Smt/Sri.A.M. Rudrumuni,  Advocate for OP No.1 and Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate for OP No.2, OP No.3 deleted)

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 pay Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a, Rs.1,00,000/- towards costs and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that, he is having agricultural land measuring 5-acres 07-guntas situated at Meerasabihalli village, Challakere taluk and he is regularly sowing ground nut crop in his land by investing huge amount towards seeds, manure, fertilizers and labour charges and obtained crop insurance to his crop by paying premium amount under PMFBY to the OP No.1.  It is further submitted that, due to failure of rain, the crop was failed and accordingly, the complainant has received Rs.64,935-00 towards crop insurance under PMFBY, which is a deficiency of service.  The OPs have to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards insurance amount for 5-acres 07-guntas.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 12.12.2017, 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 3 and filed version. 

According to the version filed by OP No.1, it is submitted that, the complainant has cropped ground nut crop in his lands bearing sy. No.65/4P2 and he borrowed loan to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- from OP No.1 Bank.  The Bank has received the premium amount of Rs.1,842-90 and send the proposal to 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 for Rs.64,935-00, 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.1 has 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, the Government has laid down operation guidelines for the implementation of the PMFBY Scheme.  The Bank suppose to obtain the proposal form from the farmer upload the same in the website wherein the premium is computed and the Government uploads the claim amount to be disbursed to the farmers in the event of claim and accordingly, the company after cross checking the amount, disburses the claim amount in favour of the farmer as per the direction of Government.  It is not aware of the fact that, the complainant is an agriculturist and he owns lands situated at Meersabihalli village, Challakere Taluk and regularly he is sowing ground nut crop in his lands and he is having rain fed lands.  The OP No.2 and 3 have not made any deficiency of service and it has paid the insurance amount to the complainant and as per the shortfall of rain during the period through NEFT as per the norms of the guidelines.    Hence, OP No.2 and 3 are 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-5 and closed his side. OP No.1 has examined one Sri. C. Nagaraj, the Manager as DW-1 and Sri. Krishna Sheernalli, as DW-2 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. It is pertinent to note that, regularly the complainant was growing ground nut crop.   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 sent legal notice to the OPs but, they have not given any reply and not settled the claim towards loss of crop.  Then the complainant has 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.  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, 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.  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 and 3 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.27,209/- 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 and 3 are 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 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 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. Krishna Sheernalli, by filing affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Legal notice dated 12.12.2017
02	Ex-A-2:-	Adhar Card
03	Ex-A-3:-	2 Postal receipts
04	Ex.A-4:-	Postal acknowledgement
05	Ex.A-5:-	Online check status

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Rhr.