Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/25/2014

V. Dharmalingam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Join Directer, Agricultural Office and One another. - Opp.Party(s)

D.Geetha

23 Dec 2014

ORDER

    Date of Filing     : 30.06.2014

                                                                                           Date of Disposal:23.12.2014

           

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com., ….  MEMBER I

                   Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMBER II

 

CC. No.25/2014

 

DECIDED ON THIS 23^rd  DAY OF DECEMBER  2014.

 

1. V. Darmalingam,

    S/o Veerakatthidevar

    Sivan West Street,

     Nagapattinan Town,

     Nagapattinam District.                            … Complainant

                                                                                      

                                                                /versus/

 

1.   Joint Director,

     Agricultural Office,

      Nethaji Road,

      Nagapattinam.

2. The Branch Manager,

      Union Bank,

      Nagapattinam.                                        … Opposite parties

 

                 

 

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 11.12.2014 on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Tmt.Geetha, Counsel for the complainant, Government Pleader, Counsel for the 1^st opposite party, Thiru.N.Rajendran, counsel for the 2^nd opposite party and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum passed the following

ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that the complainant is not given the Crops Insurance amount payable to his lands comprised in Survey No.163/2C Hec.0.64.5 and Survey No.237/9 Hec 0.03.5 totalling Hec.0.68.0 and for the notice sent by him on 25.03.2014 and the petition sent on 28.04.2014 under the Right to Information Act the opposite parties have not sent any reply and they have committed deficiency of service and the complainant prays for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay jointly or severally the sum of Rs.13,000/- towards the crops insurance amount for the said Hec.0.68.0, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for their deficiency of service, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this complaint and to grant such and other reliefs as this Forum shall deem fit.

                        3. The gist of the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party is that the 1^st opposite party is an unnecessary party to this complaint as he has nothing to do with the sanction or disbursement of the Insurance amount to the complainant.  His role is only to inspect the lands along with the Revenue Officials and to assess the extent of the lands affected by the drought and prepare the list of the lands so affected as to get the insurance amount.  As there was no basis or reason for issuing a notice to this opposite party no reply was given to the complainant’s notice dated 28.04.2014.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs to this opposite party.

                        4. The gist of the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party is that he advanced the sum of Rs.40,000/- on 03.11.2012 to the complainant towards the crop loan, debited Rs.400/- i.e. 1% of the loan amount of Rs.40,000/- on 29.12.2012 from his account and remitted to the National Agricultural Insurance Company, Chennai by way of Demand Draft on 31.01.2013.  The 2^nd opposite party had forwarded the list of borrowers to all the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks Ltd through the Lead Bank Indian Overseas Bank and whatever amount sanctioned by the State Government body has been credited in all the respective accounts including the complainant’s savings bank account.  The 2^nd opposite party is only an intermediary and has nothing to do with the sanction of the Insurance amount.  The complainant had already filed a complaint in CC.44/2013 on the file of this Forum on the same facts and no relief was sought by the complainant therein as against this opposite party.  Further the said complaint was dismissed as settled out of the Forum on the memo filed by this opposite party.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.

                        5.  The complainant has filed his proof affidavit reiterating all the averments made in the complaint and four documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A4.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have filed their respective proof affidavits and the second opposite party has filed eight documents in support of his defence and they are marked as Exhibits B1 to B8.  Written arguments have been filed by all the parties.

                        6. The points to be decided in this complaint:-

                         1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

                         2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

                         3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

                        7. Point 1: The learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party has vehemently argued that the 2^nd opposite party is totally an unnecessary party to this complaint as he is only an intermediator and having advanced a crop loan to the complainant his duty is only to debit the insurance premium from the loan account of the complainant to remit it to the National Agricultural Insurance Company, Chennai and to credit the insurance amount sanctioned to the complainant in his account and he has discharged the said duty promptly and there is no deficiency of service on his part.

                        8. On the side of the 2^nd opposite party, the Chitta for patta No.844, 650 and 653 in the name of Veerakatthi, the father of the complainant and patta No.254 in the name of one Selvi. Erudayamari, comprising the lands shown in the complaint is filed as Exhibit B1. The adangal extract for the lands is filed as Exhibit B2 and it reveals 70% of the yield of paddy.  Exhibit B3 is the statement showing the remittance of the premium amount for all the farmers who are having the loan account with the 2^nd opposite party and it is revealed that Rs.400/- i.e 1 % of the loan amount of Rs.40,000/- advanced to the complainant is collected towards premium for all the lands comprised in the four survey numbers.  Exhibit B4 is the statement of the loan account of the complainant indicating the disbursement of Rs.40,000/- as loan to the complainant. Exhibit B5 is another statement of account for the period from 01.07.2012 to 18.11.2013 which reveals that the sum of Rs.32,550/- is deposited in his account on 18.04.2013 under the head “Drought Relief & Insurance 2012-2013” and the complainant has withdrawn Rs.32,600/- on 06.05.2013. Exhibit B6 is the copy of the complaint filed by the complainant in CC.44/2013 on the file of this Forum seeking the relief for the very same lands comprised in Survey No.237/9 Hec.0.3.5 and Survey No.163/2C Hec.0.64.05 totalling Hec.0.68.0 aars.   Exhibit B7 is the certified copy of the memo filed by the complainant to withdraw the said complaint as the dispute is settled out of the Forum and Exhibit B8 is the certified copy of the order passed by this Forum on the said complaint.  The said complaint in CC.44/2013 on the file of this Forum has been  dismissed as settled out of the Forum.

                        9. The learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party has vehemently argued that the complainant had not claimed any relief at all in the previous complaint in CC.44/2013 as against the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant had not made any whisper in this complaint about the said earlier complaint with an ulterior motive to get this complaint taken on file by this Forum and the complaint shall therefore be dismissed with costs to the 2^nd opposite party.

                        10. The contention of the 2^nd opposite party is fully acceptable. The perusal of Exhibit B6 would go to show that the complainant had not sought any relief as against the 2^nd opposite party who is the 4^th opposite party in that complaint.  The complaint had sought for drought relief in the said complaint as against the opposite parties No.1 to 3 in that complaint and they are not added as parties to this complaint.  Exhibit B7 reveals that the complainant had withdrawn the earlier complaint in CC.44/2013 on the file of this Forum as settled out of the Forum and Exhibit B8 evidences that the said complaint had been dismissed as settled out of the Forum.

                        11.The complainant has not made any whisper of his earlier complaint in this complaint and he has totally suppressed it.  The complainant ought to have sought for all the reliefs in the said complaint as the cause of action for that complaint was one and the same or he ought to have obtained the leave of this Forum to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action.

In the decision reported in 2012 (1) CPR 212 (N.C)

            Mr.Vikas B.Patharkar                    … Petitioner

                                                /Vs/

            M/S Aditya Associates & others … Respondents

the Hon’ble National Commission has held that when State Commission permitted simple  withdrawal but without any liberty to file fresh complaint on same cause of action fresh complaint on same cause of action cannot be filed. Hence this complaint is not all maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed in limine.

                        12. Point 2: The complainant has filed Exhibit A1 in which it is stated that the relief is not granted as the crops were not insured. The said exhibit has no authenticity and the said information is false in the light of Exhibit B3 and B4 which prove that the sum of Rs.400/- had been remitted towards insurance premium.  Exhibit A2 is the copy of the petition sent by the complainant’s counsel after filing this complaint to the 1^st opposite party seeking information under the Right to Information Act.  Exhibit A3 is the copy of the letter addressed by opposite party 1 to the opposite party 2.  As the opposite party 1 is not the competent persons to give that information sought by the complainant he has rightly addressed the 2^nd opposite party. Exhibit A4 is the acknowledgment issued by the Collectorate, Nagapattinam for the receipt of the petition for insurance amount given by the complainant on the grievance day.  The complainant has not filed the complaint in good faith.  He has not given the particulars such as the survey numbers and the amount of insurance and drought relief received by him separately to each survey number.  He has not even explained how he is entitled to get Rs.13,000/- for the extent of Hec.0.68.0 comprised in Survey No.163/2C and Survey No.237/9.  Above all he has filed the complaint against the opposite parties who have no competency at all to sanction or disburse the Insurance amount. They are only intermediaries and unnecessary parties to this complaint.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

                        13. Point 3: In the result the complaint is dismissed. The complainant has filed this complaint without issuing prior notice to the opposite parties who are unnecessary parties and without disclosing the disposal of the earlier complaint in CC.44/2013 on the file of this Forum filed by him.  Hence the complainant is directed to pay the costs of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) each to the opposite parties.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, directly typed by him and corrected and pronounced by me on this 23^rd day of December 2014.

 

 

    MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                 PRESIDENT

List  of document filed by the complainant

 

Ex.A1/Dt.13.05.2013: The Print out from the Online relating to the complainant’s request.

Ex.A2/Dt.28.04.2014: The copy of the petition sent by the complainant’s counsel to the 1^st

    opposite party seeking information under the Right to Information

    Act, with acknowledgment card and receipt.

Ex.A3/Dt.29.04.2014: The copy of the letter sent  by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd

             opposite party.

Ex.A4/Dt.17.02.2014: The Xerox copy of the acknowledgment issued by the Collectorate,

             Nagapattinam, to the complainant on grievance day.

 

 

List  of document filed by the 2^nd opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1/Dt.06.10.2012 : The Xerox copy of the Chitta for patta in the name of Veerakatthi,

   and one Selvi. Erudayamari, given by the Village Administrative 

   Officer, Kilvelur.

Ex.B2/Dt.06.10.2012 : The Xerox copy of the adangal extract for the complainant’s  lands

    given by the Village Administrative  Officer, Kilvelur.

Ex.B3/Dt.       Nil       : The statement showing the remittance of the premium amount for

 the complainant  having the loan account with the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.B4/Dt.18.11.2013: The statement of the loan account of the complainant given by the

               2^nd opposite party.

Ex.B5/Dt.18.11.2013:The another statement of the loan account of the complainant for

    the  period from 01.07.2012 to 18.11.2013 given by the 2^nd  

    opposite party.

Ex.B6/Dt.24.10.2013: The Xerox copy of the earlier complaint filed by the complainant in

               CC.44/2013 on the file of this Forum.

Ex.B7/Dt.30.12.013:The  certified copy of the memo filed by the complainant before this

  Forum.

Ex.B8.Dt.30.12.2012: The certified copy of the order passed by this Forum on the said

   complaint in CC.No.44/2013.

 

 

 

    MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.25/ 2014.

Order Dt.:23.12.2014.