Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/6/2018

C.Venketaramana S/o Chanappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S.Sathyanarayanarao

04 Oct 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON :19/01/2018

               DISPOSED ON:06/10/2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 06/2018 DATED:4th OCTOBER 2018

 

 

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

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI:

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

 

COMPLAINANT/S

C.Venkataramana, S/o Chanappa, Aged about 55 Years, P.Mahadevpura Village, Challkere Taluk, Chitradurga Dist, Karnataka State.   (Rep by Smt/Sri. P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Vadanakallu Village, Pavgada taluk,Tumkuru Dist, Karnataka.   2. The Branch Manager, Rural Agricultural Insurance, TATA AIG General Insurance, 15th Floor, Peninsular Business Park, GK Marg Tower-A, Sonapet Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai-400013.   3. The Manager-Claims, Tata Aig General Insurance Co., Ltd., A-501,5th floor, Building No.4, Infinity,IT Park, Dindoshi, Malad(E), Mumbai-400097   (Rep by Smt/Sri.C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate for OP No.1 and Sri.B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate for OP No. 2 and 3)

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.3,00,000/- towards damages, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of earning, mental agony and cost and to grant such other reliefs.

 

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is the absolute owner of lands bearing sy.No.131/1A1 measuring 2-acres 08-guntas, sy.No.1314/1AP measuring 2-acres 30-guntas, sy.No.140/3B measuring 4-acres 03-guntas and sy.No.160/A measuring 30acres 34-guntas totally 12-acres 35-guntas situated at P. Mahadevapura village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District.  The complainant is regularly cultivating the above said lands by sowing ground nut crop.  The above said lands are rain fed lands.  Further it is submitted that, the complainant has availed an agricultural loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 23.06.2016 and he has insured his ground nut crop for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by paying Rs.4,584/- towards insurance premium on 09.08.2016 to the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 has sent the proposal to the OP No.2 vide proposal No.676950, which clearly shows that, the complainant has insured his ground nut crop under PMFBY.  Further it is submitted that, on failure of rain and other natural calamities, the complainant has suffered loss for the year 2015-16, for that the complainant is liable for Rs.3,00,000/- as insured amount for the loss of his ground nut crop.  But till now, the complainant has not received any amount from OP No.2 and 3.  The complainant has approached OP No.2 and 3 several times, but they have not paid the insurance amount.  Further the complainant also written two letters to the OP No.1 dated 19.10.2017 and 27.11.2017, but the OPs have not paid any amount to the complainant for loss of crop.  The complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs on 12.12.2017 and the same has been served to them.  After service of notice, the OPs have not come forwards to settle the claim of the complainant, which clearly goes to show that, there is clear-cut negligence, deficiency in service and dereliction of duties and unfair trade practice.  The cause of action for this complaint arose at Mahadevapura village, Challakere Taluk, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.     After issuance of the notice to the OPs, OP No.1 appeared through Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate, OP No.2 and 3 appeared through Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate and filed their respective version. 

 

According to the version filed by OP No.1, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The complainant has sworn false affidavit and created a concocted story for filing this complaint and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The averments made in the complaint are false.  Further the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation and the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.  The allegations made in para 5 to 6 are the matter of proof of record and evidence.  The negligence and deficiency in service of OP No.1 is not at all found by the complainant and the OP No.1 is not liable to pay any amount claimed by the complainant.  It is true that, the complainant has paid the premium amount through his account and the same has been sent to OP No.2 within the cutoff date.  The OP No.2 and 3 are held liable to pay the compensation amount and not by this OP No.1.  PMFBY is applicable only to the rain fed lands but not for the irrigated lands and the lands of complainant are the irrigated lands. 

According to the version filed by the OP No.2 and 3 that, the averments made in para 1 to 7 are specifically admitted and denied as false.  The averments made in para 2 and 3 is not aware by this OP No.1 and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The OP No.1 has collected Rs.4,584/- on 09.08.2016 towards PMFBY towards crop insurance premium.  Further the allegations made in the complaint are denied as false and the OP No.2 and 3 are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant.  Further it is submitted that, the information gathered by the OP insurance company towards proposal No.67950 has not been forwarded to OP No.2 and 3 and the said proposal is still pending at the Banker.  As per the PMFBY, the time period for submission of farmers data to insurance company is 15 days after the cutoff date.  In this case, premium debit cutoff date was 10^th August 2016 and the bankers suppose to send all the proposals within 15^th August 2016, but with the directions of the Department, the time has been extended up to 08.12.2016.  After the said date, the proposal is not accepted by the OP No.2 and 3.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and 3 and hence, the OP No.1 and 3 prays 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.D.R. Santhosh Kumar, the Deputy Manager as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 and B-2 documents, OP No.2 has examined one Sri. Krishna Sheernalli, as DW-2 and by filing affidavit evidence 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 OP No.2 and 3 within the cutoff date and there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2 and 3 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 in Affirmative.

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

 

::REASONS::

 

8. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, the complainant is the absolute owner of the above said lands situated at P. Mahadevapura village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District totally measuring 12-acres 35-guntas.  The complainant has raised ground nut crop in the said land for the year 2015-16 by paying insurance premium amount under PMFBY.  The OP No.1 has collected the amount of Rs.4,584/- on 09.08.2018 from the account of the complainant and send the same to OP No.2 and 3 within the cutoff date as prescribed by the Government.  The above said crop was a rain fed crop.  Due to shortage of rain fall and other natural calamities, the crop was failed.  The OP No.1 has send the proposal form of the farmers in the locality of P. Mahadevapura village within the cutoff date as per Ex.B-1 and B-2.  OP No.1 has stated in its version and admitted that, it has collected premium amount from the complainant and further stated that, the same has been send to OP No.2 and 3 within the cutoff date.  The version filed by the OP No.2 that, the OP No.1 has not sent the premium amount collected from the complainant within the cutoff date.  But as per the documents produced by the OP No.1 clearly shows that, the OP No.1 has sent the amount to OP No.2 within the cutoff date. 

 9.    We have gone through the entire documents, affidavits filed by both the parties.  The documents produced clearly shows that, the complainant is having agricultural lands situated at P. Mahadevapura village, Challakere Taluk and he has raised ground nut crop in the year 2015-16 and the same has been insured under PMFBY by paying insurance premium of Rs.4,584/- through OP No.1.  The OP No.1 has sent the premium amount to OP No.2 and 3 within the cutoff date.  As per Ex.B-1 and B-2 the OP No.1 has send the premium amount to the OP No.2 and 3.  But, OP No.2 and 3 have raised objections that, the OP No.1 has not sent the premium amount within cutoff date. The OP No.2 and 3 have not produced any piece of paper to show that, they have collected the premium amount from the OP No.1 after the cutoff date.  Ex.B-1 and B-2 clearly shows that, the premium amount has been send by the OP No.1 to OP No.2 and 3 within the cutoff date.  Here the case on hand is that, the OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency of service or negligence.  The negligence and deficiency of service and unfair trade practice is only on the part of OP No.2 and 3 for non settling of the insurance amount to the complainant.  The OP No.2 and 3 have not produced any document to show that, the OP No.1 has not sent any amount to them, but in the version, OP No.2 admits that, the OP No.1 has send the premium amount. As per the documents produced by both sides, clearly shows that, the OP No.1 has sent the premium amount to OP No.2 and 3 within the cutoff date.  Hence, we come to the conclusion that, the OP No.2 and 3 have committed deficiency in service. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 held as partly 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.2,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.

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

The complaint filed as against OP No.1 is hereby 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 04/10/2018 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.D.R. Santhosh Kumar Deputy Manager 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:-	Computerized copy of proposal of Bank
02	Ex-A-2:-	Certified copy of letter dated 19.10.2017 by the complainant to Bank
03	Ex-A-3:-	Certified copy of letter dated 27.11.2017 by the complainant to Bank
04	Ex.A-4:-	Legal notice dated 12.12.2017
05	Ex.A-5:-	3 postal receipts and 2 postal acknowledgements

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Proposal form
02	Ex-B-2:-	Premium paid receipt

 

 

LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Rhr.