-::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.15/2018.
Date of filing: 06.04.2018.
Date of disposal: 30.05.2019.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: Omprakash, S/o Vithalrao Karbari
Age:60 years, Occ: Farmer
R/o Beeri (B), Tq.Bhalki, Dist.Bidar.
(Through Special Power of Attorney Holder),
Nagaraj, S/o Omprakash Karbari,
Age:30 years, Occ:Advocacy,
R/o Beeri (B),Tq.Bhalki,Dist.Bidar.
( Inperson )
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) The Chief Executive Officer,
PKPS, Beeri (B) Tq.Bhalki, Dist.Bidar.
2) The Manager, DCC Bank,
Near Subhash Chowk Branch,
Bhalki.
(O.P No. 1 & 2 by Smt. Padma M., Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
The complainant has been filed U/Sec.12 of C.P.Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against both the opponents.
2. The complainant alleges that, he is an agriculturist and holder of dry land in Sy.No. 59 of Beeri (B) Village Bhalki (Tq.), Bidar Distict, which is a dry land. During the khariff season of 2016, obtained insurance cover under Pradhana Manthri Fasal Bima Yojana to grow Soyabean crops by paying a premium amount of Rs.1,069.02 paise through O.P.no.1. There was a crop failure and he had lodged a claim to obtain the insured amount. The complainant further avers that, at the time of filing the form for insurance he had submitted the R.T.C. extract of the land denoting the same as dry land. The O.P.no.1 but, while making data entry, had negligently made a wrong entry, denoting the land concerned as irrigated land where by consequent upon the crop failure he was paid a meagre sum of Rs.244.43 towrds insurance cover instead of the insured amount. The complainant further avers that, he had approached the opponents number of times and they have admitted their mistakes about the wrong entry regarding classification of the land, but they have falsely claimed that, the loan granted to the complainant was for raising sugar cane crop which is never grown in dry lands. The complainant asserts the wrong data entry are deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of both opponents and has sought for a compensation of Rs.55,000/- together with a further sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost, expenses and towards mental harassment.
3. The opponents entering into defence thorugh counsel have filed written version refuting the allegations of the complainant. They admit the ownership of the land but deny it’s characters and assert that, the same is act of god. They also admit the submission of insurance proposal. But, dispute the fact of the land being rain fed. The opponent no.1 denies about the loan having been granted for growing Soya bean crop and further that, the relevant village is under irrigated category, coming under Lakhangaon circle, where in Karnja river water irrigates the entire lands. The loan was granted for Sugar-cane crop and not Soya bean as alleged and the land in R.T.C. was mentioned as fallow land. By the opponent no.1 it is claimed that he had tried to contact the complainant over phone but could not succeed and therefore had construed that, the land availed was for sugar-cane crops in irrigated land and not Soya bean. The O.P.no.1 attributes the wrong entry to the misfeasance of the complainant and not the society. The rest of the averments are rhetoric’s bearing no legitimate significance to the issues in hand. The opponents reiterate that, the date feeding was appropriate and no fault can be attributed to them.
4. Both sides have produced several documents, evidence affidavits, written arguments and were head extensively. The opponents have further provided two citations reported in 2011 NCJ page 181 (NC) and 2010 SAR (Civil) page-600. While the first case is regarding defective seeds, the second one is in connection with issues of order 1 Rule 10 and order XXVII Rule 1 and section 79 of the C.P.C. Both the cases are in appropriate to apply the findings to the case in hand.
5. Weighing the pros and cons of the case, the following points arise for our consideration.
- Does the complainant prove the deficiency in the part of the opponents, specifically Opponent no.1?
- Do the opponents prove that, they had acted with due diligence and the land in question was irrigated one as data fed by them?
- What orders?
6. Our answers to the points raised are as follows:-
- In the affirmative.
- In the negative.
- As per the final orders owing to the following:-
:: REASONS ::
7. The copy of the proposal form has been produced by the complainant as Annexure-C and the original has been produced by the opponents as Annexure-R1. The acknowledgement of the insurance proposal filed by complainant is at Annexure-D and the R.T.C. extract at Annexure-F. The same R.T.C. extract is produced by the opponent as Annexre-R.2. From the contents of the proposal form at Annexure-C and R.1, it is seen that, the form was filled up for crop insurance in Sy.no.59 and Redgram in Sy.no.169 of Beeri (B) village of Bhalki Taluk. Annexures F & R-2 prove that the land concerned was Khuski and not irrigated and that, the loan was not availed for sugar cane crop as claimed in Annexure-G and the defence of the opponent is hollow per se. It is only a later act to cover the misfeasance. Herein the complainant proves his case to the hilt and we answer the point in affirmative.
8. Basing on the factors discussed supra it is crystal clear that, the opponents made wrong data feeding which was the cause of the deprieval of the insurance amount to the complainant on crop failure and hence we answer this point in the negative.
9. Wrong data entry in the hands of opponent no.1 and the consequential loss of the insurance amount had happened by the negligence and unfair practice of the opponent no.1 alone. By no conceivable imagination, the opponent no.2, a nodal agency for likes of O.P.no.1 could have any hand or control of such deficiency of service and we are of the opinion that, the present case would not apply against O.P.no.2. However, the O.P.no.1 being solely liable, we pass the following:
::ORDER::
- The complaint is allowed in part.
- The O.P.no.1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.53,230/- (rounded of) being the difference of the insured amount of Rs.53,463/- and the paid amount of Rs.244.43/- to the complainant.
- The amount aforesaid would carry an interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation.
- A sum of Rs.10,000/- be further paid by the O.P.no.1 towards cost, expenses and mental agonies.
- Case against O.P.no.2 dismissed.
- Four weeks time granted to comply this order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 30th day of May 2019).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure.A- Special power of attorney instrument (original)
- Annexure.B– Acknowledged copy of protest letter dt.07.11.2017.
- Annexure.C- Copy of Insurance proposal.
- Annexure.D– Acknowledgement insurance proposal
- Annexure.E- Copy of another protest letter.
- Annexure.E.1- Copy of acknowledgement of insurance company
- Annexure.F- R.T.C. extract of Sy.no59, Beeri (B) village
- Annexure.G Reply notice to complainant dt.18.12.2017.
- Annexure. H- Copy of E-correspondence.
- Annexure.J - ( ‘I ‘excluded )- Certificate of village Accountant of
Beeri (B) village.
Document produced by the Opponents.
- Annexure.R.1- Original insurance proposal form
- Annexure.R.2- R.T.C. extract of Sy.no.59.
- Annexure.R.3- Ledger extract.
- Annexure.R.4- Statement of accounts.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Omprakash, S/o Vithal Rao (complainant).
Opponent.
- R.W.1- Sri Santosh, S/o Tukaram, Biradar, C.F.O, of O.P.no.1.
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
