Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/142/2018

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

Versus

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

Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao

11 Apr 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON :21/07/2018

               DISPOSED ON:11/04/2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

CC. NO. 142/2018 DATED:11th APRIL 2019

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

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

                                BSc., MBA., DHA.,

LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINANT/S

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,State Bank of India No:693,Neharu Circle, Challkere Town, 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   (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 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.1,65,927/- towards loss of crop, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation 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, the complainant is an agriculturist by profession owning 4-acres of land in sy.No.36/P3 and 6-acres of land in sy.No.36/P2P1 in all 10-acres situated at Bukkambudi village, Talku Hobli, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District.  In the said land, the complainant is cultivating maize and ground nut and tourdal.  The complainant insured the said crops under PMFBY during 2016-17.  The complainant has obtained crop loan from OP No.1 and at the time of lending loan, the OP NO.1 has collected amount towards insurance premium of Rs.3,318-54 for the above said land on 02.08.2016 vide proposal No.902015 and 902888 respectively under PMFBY for tourdal.  Due to failure of rainfall, the said crop has been completely failed and as such the complainant has to receive Rs.1,65,927/- 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 send 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.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate and Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and 3 filed their version. 

According to the version filed by OP No.1, it is submitted that, the OP No.1 has paid the crop insurance to OP No.2 within time as per the guidelines of the Government through DD bearing No.437775 dated 02.08.2016 for Rs.34,046-65 in favour of OP No.2 in respect of crop insurance premium amount of the complainant and followed all the necessary procedures with respect to fulfilling the crop insurance premiums except some technical errors.  The crop insurance premiums of several farmers including the complainant were acknowledged by the OP No.2 and the DD sent by the OP No.1 is already realized to the OP No.2 well within time.  If the OP No.1 has not fulfilled the necessary procedures of payments of crop insurance premiums of the farmers, then the OP No.2 shall have to return the same to OP No.1 with necessary reasons or endorsements.  But the OP No.2 has not sent back the crop insurance premium amounts of the farmers/complainants in all the cases till this day.  The same is clearly and properly informed to the complainants in all the cases and therefore, the complainants in all the cases are not entitled any reliefs against the OP No.1.  As per the records and as per the policy with procedure of crop insurance, the OP No.2 is held responsible to pay the crop insurance as per the survey of the Government of Karnataka.  The OP No.1 has followed all the necessary procedures in respect of the payments of the crop insurance premiums to the OP No.2 within time and the same was clearly realized to the account of OP No.2.  If any discrepancies found by the procedure of the OP No.1, then the OP No.2 shall return the said payments to the OP No.1 within no time but the same is not done by the OP No.2.  Hence, if the complainants are entitled for any claims as per the policy of insurance or procedure of insurance or if they are eligible for the same, the OP No.2 is held responsible for the same and this OP No.1 is not liable to fulfill any of the reliefs claimed by the complainants in all the cases 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 owners of the lands as stated in their 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. K.R. Ramesh, the Chief Manager 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 lands 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 send the same to OP No.2.  It is pertinent to note that, regularly the complainant was growing groundnut/maize/Tourdal crops in his lands 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 is 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 if the crop failed due to failure of rainfall/natural calamities @ 80% of the insured amount. 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.1,32,741/- 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.10,000/- 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 11/04/2019 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. K.R. Ramesh, the Chief 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 14.06.2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	Broacher under PMFBY
03	Ex-A-3:-	R of Rs
04	Ex.A-4:-	Statement of Account
05	Ex.A-5:-	Acknowledgement
06	Ex.A-6:-	Check status
07	Ex.A-7:-	Postal receipt
08	Ex.A-8:-	Postal acknowledgement

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Statement of account
02	Ex-B-2:-	Letter dated 03.01.2017 by OP No.1
03	Ex.B-3:-	acknowledgement

 

 

LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Rhr.