BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GADAG.

COMPLAINT NO.2/2020

Date: 29^th day of May-2021

                                      P r e s e n t:                  

Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar, B.A., LLB   :  President 

Sri.B.S.Keri, B.A., LLB (Spl)                   :   Member

Complainant/s:                      1. Chandrappa S/o  Venkataraddi Tondikatti, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Radderanaganura, Taluk:Nargund, District: Gadag.

                                                2. Manjunatharaddi S/o  Chandrappa Tondikatti, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Radderanaganura, Taluk:Nargund, District: Gadag.

                                                (By Sri.C.V. Hiremath, Advocate)

                                                      V/s           

Respondent/s:                        1.  The Branch Manager,

                                                Syndicate Bank, Nargund,

                                                Dist: Gadag-582207.

                                                2.  The Branch Manager,

                                                Vijaya Bank, Shirola, R/o Shirola,

                                                Taluk: Nargund, Dist: Gadag-582207.

                                                3. The Officer in-charge,

Agriculture Insurance Company Ltd., Nrupatunga Road, Near Hudson Circle, Bangalore-04.

                                                4.  The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,

                                                Regional Office, 2B Unit Building,

                                                Annext P, Kalingarao Road,

                                                (Mission Road), Bangalore-27.

(By Shri/Smt. V.T.Kulkarni, Advocate for OP No.1, D.K. Deshpande, Advocate for OP No.2, K.V. Kerur, Advocate for    OP No.3 and OP No.4 absent)

-::O R D E R::-

BY: SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT.

1.      The complainant has filed this complaint claiming direction to the OPs to pay the crop insurance amount of Rs.1,09,234.02 along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a, Rs.20,000/- compensation towards mental agony, loss, damage with cost and such other relief.

-::Brief facts of the case are as under::-

2.      The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is having joint crop loan account bearing No.12138010013643 with the OP No.1 and they obtained crop loan under the lands bearing sy.Nos.31/1 measuring 7-38 Acres, 714/4 measuring 4-00 Acre, 184/1 measuring 2-15 Acres for a sum of Rs.7,30,000/- in 2018-19 Khariff season.  At the time of obtaining the crop loan, the complainants have  paid the crop insurance 2018-19 under PMFBY to the OP No.1 for khariff season.  After sanctioning of the insurance amount from OP No.3, complainant approached the OP No.1 for payment of the insurance amount.  For that, OP No.1 told the complainant that, without verifying the documents, OP No.2 has received the premium amount in the name of one Devaraddi S/o Venkaraddi Tondikatti on the land of sy.No.31/1 measuring 7-38 Acres under application No.485401 and therefore, insurance amount of Rs.1,90,234-02 has been credited with the OP No.2 Branch. Thereafter, complainant enquired with the OP No.2 about the same and requested them to transfer the above said insurance amount to the complainants account, but OP No.2 did not give any response and refused to transfer the said amount and told the complainant to approached the Court, which is a deficiency of service, which caused the complainant to suffer mental, physical and financial loss.  Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs, the same was served to them.  OP No.2 gave an evasive reply on 29.11.2019 and 09.12.2019.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 13.11.2019 when the complainant issued notice to the OPs and on 29.11.2019 and on 09.12.2019 when the OP No.2 gave an evasive reply to the said notice.   Hence there is a deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay crop insurance amount of Rs.1,90,234-02 under the scheme with interest @ 18% p.m, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, loss and damages with costs of the proceedings and such other reliefs.

3.      Registered the complaint and notice was ordered as such OP No.1 to 3 present before the Commission.  OP No.2 and 3 filed their written version, OP No.1 not filed written version and OP No.4 remained absent. 

Written Version of the OP No.2

1. OP No.2 stated that, the above complaint is not tenable either in law or on facts, and the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.
2. It is submitted that, the complainants are neither the customers of the Bank nor the Bank has undertaken any service contract for and on behalf of the complainants.  The entire complaint is misconceived in respect of facts as well law and the complaint is to be dismissed at the outset. 
3. It is submitted that, one Tondakatti Devaraddi S/o Venkataraddi approached OP No.2 for the loan in the year 2015 and for the security of repayment he has mortgaged his land bearing sy.No.31/1A+B and sy.No.22A/1/7 of Radder Naganur village in Nargund Taluk.  After satisfying and perusing the record of rights and mutation pertaining to the said lands and title, the OP Bank has advanced the loan to the borrower Devaraddi S/o Venkaraddi Tondikatti.  It is further submitted that, sy.No.31/1A+B measuring 15-Acrres 36-Guntas, upon the division under the certified mutation M.R.No.30/2005-06, the land to an extent of 7-Acres, 38-Guntas stands in the name of Chandrappa and Manjunathgouda jointly and another land i.e., Sy.No.22A/1/7 of same village, measuring 2-Acres, 34-Guntas belongs to the borrower Devaraddi.  The land measuring 7-Acres, 38-Guntas of sy.No.31/1A+B i.e., portion belongs to Devaraddi and land in sy.No.22A/1/7 both are mortgaged in favour of OP No.2 and such deed of mortgage is registered as document No.NRG-1-01496-2015-16 dated 15.07.2015 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Nargund.  The borrower has tendered an undertaking that, in case of any change of ownership or mutation, shall be with the prior consent of the Bank.  The insurance was covered for the borrowers crop in the year 2018-19 khariff season as per the information of the borrower and upon receipt of the compensation amount, the same was credited to the beneficiary account.  As such the allegations that made in the complaint are false and misconceived and same are denied and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                              Written Version of the OP No.3

1. The OP No.3 contended that Complaint of complainant is not maintainable both in law, the allegations made against this OP is highly imaginary and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. 
2. It is further submitted that, during PMFBY Khariff 2018-19, Gadag District was not allotted to their company.  It is pertinent to note that, New India Insurance Company has implemented PMFBY Khariff 2018-19 Season and thus under these circumstances, OP No.3 has nowhere committed any deficiency of service and are not liable to pay any compensation or any costs to the complainant and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  As per PMFBY Khariff 2018-19 Season Notification (Cluster 2), Gadag Disrtrict was allotted to New India Insurance Company.  Therefore, there is no cause of action arose against this OP and therefore, the petition is devoid of merits.  The allegations made in the complaint are completely false and created one to get wrongful gain from this OP.  It is further submitted that, this OP is a Government undertaking company and is the custodian of Public Fund and it has to act according to the Rules and calculated the loss as per the provisions of the Insurance Act.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on its part and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.  The complainant No.2 has filed his affidavit evidence with 19 documents, the Branch Manager of OP No.2 filed his chief affidavit and no documents have been produced. The documents produced by complainants are as follows:

COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

5. On pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainant and OPs, the following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant have proved the deficiency in service

on the part of the OPs as averred in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief?
3. What Order?

6.  Our findings to the above points are:-

     Point No. 1:  Affirmative

     Point No. 2:  Partially Affirmative

     Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

           7.  POINT NO.1 AND 2:  Both the points are inter-linked and identical. Hence we proceed both the points together.

 8.     The Complainant filed this Complaint against the OPs for claiming crop insurance 2016-17 on failure of weather.

 9.     The Complainant/s submits that they have insured their crops with OPs in the year 2018-19 for the Cotton and Onion crop which was grown in their lands with OP No.1 under FASAL BHEEMA YOJANA for 2018-19 Khariff season in their lands bearing sy. No.31/1 measuring 7-38 Acres and sy.No.714/4 measuring 4-00 Acres situated at Konnura and Raddera Naganur villages and insured with OP No.4 through OP No.1 for the yield and paid the premium amount in 2018-19 under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.2,75,414.50.    In this year, Complainant/s experienced less rain and suffered loss, but, the OPs failed to deposit the insurance amount in the Complainant/s account.  Meantime, the Complainant/s approached OPs, but Ops failed to deposit the claim amount.  Hence, Complainant/s submits that they have not got the claim amount from the OPs. On the other hand, OP No.3 submits that As per PMFBY Khariff 2018-19 Season Notification (Cluster 2), Gadag Disrtrict was allotted to New India Insurance Company.  As per the Scheme Conditions, the calculation is on the formula of threshold yield i.e., mainly based on the CCE and submits that, this complainant is not entitled for the claim as reflected in the SAMRAKSHANA Portal that the CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield and in Khariff 2018-2019 under  PMFBY and WBCIS is governed by the term sheet designed by the State Government which has triggers of deficit rainfall, dry days and excess rainfall etc.

10.  OP No.2 submits that, they have acted as the mediators between the OP No.4 and complainant and after receiving the premium amount, entire total premium amount had been transferred to OP No.4.  The contention of OP No.2 is that, one Tondakatti Devaraddi S/o Venkataraddi approached OP No.2 for the loan in the year 2015 and for the security of repayment he has mortgaged his land bearing sy.No.31/1A+B and sy.No.22A/1/7 of Radder Naganur village in Nargund Taluk.  After satisfying and perusing the record of rights and mutation pertaining to the said lands and title, the OP Bank has advanced the loan to the borrower Devaraddi S/o Venkaraddi Tondikatti.  The Sy.No.31/1A+B measuring 15-Acrres 36-Guntas, upon the division under the certified mutation M.R.No.30/2005-06, the land to an extent of 7-Acres, 38-Guntas stands in the name of Chandrappa and Manjunathgouda jointly and another land i.e., Sy.No.22A/1/7 of same village, measuring 2-Acres, 34-Guntas belongs to the borrower Devaraddi.  The land measuring 7-Acres, 38-Guntas of sy.No.31/1A+B i.e., portion belongs to Devaraddi and land in sy.No.22A/1/7 both are mortgaged in favour of OP No.2 and such deed of mortgage is registered as document No.NRG-1-01496-2015-16 dated 15.07.2015 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Nargund.  As per the document i.e., proposer data, it is pertinent to note that, the insurance company has received the premium amount for the insured crops under PMFBY for the 2018-19 Khariff Season, which is sufficient for us to come to the conclusion that, the OP No.4 insurance company has to pay the insurance amount to the complainants.  

11.    On-going through the records on file, it is an undisputed fact that complainant/s have insured their crops with OP No.4 through OP No.1 and it is also undisputed fact that they have received the premium amount from the complainant/s as well as the Government that means OP No.4 received entire premium amount from the complainant/s.

12.     As per the terms and conditions of the Scheme, the criteria is fixed for eligibility of the insurance is that, the farmer should inform about the loss occurred in their fields within 48 hours of the incident to the Agricultural Department or else to the Insurance Company.  As per the terms and conditions and the guidelines about the appointment of the assessor by the insurance Company and the time framed for loss assessment and submission of the report and condition has been explained.  Anyhow, as per the guidelines, some of the time frame has been mentioned in that guideline.  It is very necessary to know about all the guidelines to the farmers to inform the same to the concerned authority.  OPs failed to produce such documents to say that, they have educated the farmers as per the scheme.  It is just and necessary to educate the farmer about the scheme because, the premium has been paid by the farmers to the insurance Company. 

          13.    Of course complainant/s has also not produced any documents to show that he faced complete loss during 2018-19. Here we cannot totally disbelieve the prayer of the Complainant/s since there is lot of loopholes from OP No.4 while executing the scheme. Hence, Commission came to the conclusion that the claim is to be fixed on non-standard basis that, OP No.4 has to pay half of the Sum Assured for their unfair trade practice.  Since OP No.1 is also liable to pay for mental agony and harassment and further litigation charges.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative & Point No.2 is in Partly Affirmative.

14.  POINT NO. 3: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaint filed by the complainant is partially allowed. In the result, we pass the following: 

//O R D E R//

            1.  The above Complaint is partially allowed against OP No.1 and 4.

            2.   The OP No.4 is directed to pay half of the Sum Assured to Complainant/s within one month, failing which OP No.4 is liable to pay 18% interest from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

  3.  OP No.1 is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant/s towards compensation.  Further, OP No.1 is directed to pay litigation charges of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant/s.

  4.  Complaint against OP No.2 and 3 is dismissed.

           5.  Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 29^th day of May- 2021)

           (Shri B.S.Keri)                           (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)              MEMBER                                                                   PRESIDENT