Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/140/2017

Smt.Akkamma W/o late Govindareddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Pragathi krishna Gramina Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.G.Dileepkumar

23 Aug 2018

ORDER

   COMPLAINT FILED ON :27/12/2017

           DISPOSED ON:02/08/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

CC. NO. 140/2017 DATED: 2nd AUGUST 2018

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

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI   

                                         BSc.,MBA., DCA.,

LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS	Smt. Akkamma, W/o S. Govindareddy, R/oMaradihalli, Aimangala Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga   (Rep by Smt/Sri.S.G. Dileepkumar,  Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Manager, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, Maradihalli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga.   2. The Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., No.69, 2nd Floor, J.P & Devi Jambukeshwar Arcade, Millers road, Bangalore-560052.   (Rep by Smt/Sri.A.M. Rudrumuni,  Advocate for OP No.1 and Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate for OP No.2)

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.3,21,807-80, Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental shock, agony, pain and deep sorrow, Rs.2,00,000/- towards great financial loss, in all a sum of       Rs.8,21,807-80  and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that, he is the permanent resident of Maradihalli village, Hiriyur Taluk having agricultural land bearing sy.No.38/P1 measuring 11-acres 08-guntas.  In the year 2016-17 he has sowed onion seeds in the above said land by investing huge amount towards seeds, manure, fertilizers and chemicals and labour charges in all a sum of Rs.4 to 5 lakhs.  The complainant is having SB A/c with OP No.1 bearing No.10735131001954 and obtained crop loan to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP No.1 and OP No.1 remitted a sum of Rs.16,090-38 to the complainant's loan account towards insurance premium to the above onion crop under PMFBY on 11.07.2016.  OP No.2 has received the insurance amount and assured to pay the insurance amount of Rs.3,21,807-50 in case of crop failed due to natural calamities and failure of rain well in time, caused draught and due to incurable disease to get good crop in the area.  The complainant has sowed the onion seeds in good condition and removed the weeds two times.  Due to shortage of rainfall, the crop completely failed and he suffered lot of financial loss, great mental shock, agony and pain, deep sorrow and is facing very hard days.  Thereafter, the Department of Agriculture, Revenue Authorities and others have surveyed the entire region and declared that the area was fallen under draught.  Some of the farmers who have insured their crop in the region have received the insurance admissible amount but, some of the farmers in Hiriyur taluk have not received the insurance amount under the above said scheme best known to them.  The OPs have collected crores of money from the farmers and assured them to pay the amount in case of failure of crops due to natural calamities but, they failed to pay the assured amount to the farmers.  The complainant orally requested and demanded the OPs several times to pay the admissible compensation but the OPs failed to pay the insurance amount to the complainant nor given proper reply.  As per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the OPs are liable to pay the insurance amount of Rs.3,21,807-50.  The OPs are bound to pay the insurance amount due to failure of crop on account of natural calamities but, they never discharged their deliberate service, which caused financial loss to the complainant.  The OPs without reasonable ground refused to pay the compensation.  The complainant has submitted an application to pay the compensation on 01.12.2017 to settle the claim, but the OPs neglected to comply the request of the complainant, therefore, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 14.07.2017 when the complainant submitted her application to settle the claim and when the legal notice issued on 30.10.2017, 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. A.M. Rudrumuni, Advocate and filed version and Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and filed version. 

According to the version filed by OP No.1, it is admitted that, the complainant has availed loan from OP No.1 to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- for growing onion crop in her land bearing sy.No.38/P1 to the extent of 11-acres 08-guntas for the year 2016-17.  As per the guidelines of the Government of India and competent authority, an amount of Rs.16,090-38 has been debited from the complainant's account on 11.07.2016 by the OP No.1 and sent to OP No.2 towards crop insurance under PMFBY through online application, for that the OP No.2 has acknowledged the said premium.  The averments made in para 4 to 7 are not known to this OP.  It is true that, the complainant requested and demanded the OP to settle the insurance claim, the same has been suitable replied by OP No.1.  The duty of the OP No.1 is to send the premium amount remitted by the complainant to the insurance company i.e., OP No.2 therefore, OP No.2 is the authority to settle the insurance amount to the complainant if the crop failed and the OP No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation.  On the basis of the report given by the Agricultural Department and Revenue Authority, the OP No.2 has to settle the insurance claim and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against OP No.1.

OP No.2 filed version denying all the averments made in the complaint.  Further it is denied that, the Government Surveyor has not inspected the spot and not calculated the loss of the crop.  Further the OP No.2 has stated that, the OP No.1 has send the proposals of the farmers to the Insurance company on 03.06.2017 instead of 25.8.2016 and they have failed to submit the same within the extended time i.e., 8.12.2016.  The proposals were forwarded by the OP No.1 to the OP No.2 Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., is after the cutoff date and the same has been acknowledged till December 2016.  But the applications of complainant is not at all received but it was forwarded by the OP No.1 on 03.06.2017 only.  Hence, OP No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation.  As per the guidelines of PMFBY, the time limit for submission of farmers data to Insurance Company is 15 days after the date of cutoff date.  In the present case, the premium debit cutoff date was 10.08.2016 and OP No.1 supposed to send all the proposals within 15.8.2016, but with the directions of Department, the proposal acknowledgement date was extended till 08.12.2016.  The claim settlement process started and OP No.2 had closed acceptance of proposals after the said date as the claims were to be processed and further alteration/change in data was not possible by considering the adverse selection of proposals.  Hence, OP No.2 is not liable to pay compensation.  Further it is stated that, the 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, therefore, is not acceptable under the insurance and accordingly any liability towards the claim, if any, falls on to the Banks.  Hence, OP No.2 is not liable to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4. Complainant herself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on documents Ex A-1 to A-6 and closed her side.  OP No.1 has examined one Sri.K.T. Thippeswamy, the Branch Manager as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-3 and closed her side.  OP No.2 has examined one Sri. Krishna Sheernalli as DW-2 and no 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 complainants prove that, the OP No.1 has send the proposal form within the cutoff date to the OP No.2 and further OP No.2 is liable to pay the crop insurance under PMBFY 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 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 land at Maradihalli village, Hiriyur taluk.  The said person had paid the crop insurance premium amount to the OP No.1 and in turn, the OP No.1 send the same to OP No.2. The crop was failed. The Government Surveyor has inspected the spot and drawn mahazar and submitted report to the Government.  As per the report prepared by the surveyor, nearly 85% of the crop was lost.  OP No.1 says that, they have collected the premium amount and send the same to OP No.2 insurance company, the OP No.2 is liable to pay the insurance amount.  The complainant has send legal notice to the OPs but, they have not given any reply and not settled the claim towards loss of crop.  Then the complainants have filed this complaint. 

 

9.     After service of the notice, it is stated by the OP No.1 that, it has collected the premium amount and send the same to OP No.2 on 03.08.2016.  The OP No.2 says that, the OP No.1 has not send the premium amount within the cutoff date.  After hearing the arguments addressed by both the sides, the Advocate for the complainant states that, OP No.1 has collected the premium amount 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 through his account and send the same to OP No.2 within the cutoff date.  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 cutoff date.  But the OP No.1 has send the premium amount on 03.08.2017. 

 

10.   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 send 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 send the premium amount within the cutoff date.  The OP No.1 has also produced the exhibits, which clearly shows that, the OP No.1 has collected the premium amount from the complainant and in turn, the same has been send 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 within the cutoff date.  Here the OP No.2 has committed deficiency of service in settling the crop insurance amount to the complainant.  The OP No.2 has collected premium amount from OP No.1.  If OP No.1 has not send the premium amount to the OP No.2 within the cutoff date, why OP No.2 has keep the money, if the OP No.1 has not send the amount well in time, they have to return the amount collected from the OP No.1 but, till today, the OP No.2 has not returned any premium amount to the OP No.1, it is a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2.  Here the OP No.2 is liable to pay the insurance amount to the complainant.  Once, the insurance company collected the premium amount from the farmer, it is its bounden duty to settle the insurance amount if the crop failed.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 held as affirmative. 

 

 11.  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 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,21,807/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of collecting the premium till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

It is further ordered that, the complaint filed as against OP No.1 is hereby dismissed.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.2 is 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 02/08/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signature)

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT  

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainants:

PW-1:- Complainant by filing affidavit evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- Sri. K.T. Thippeswamy, the Branch Manager by filing affidavit evidence.

DW-2:- Sri. Krishna Sheernalli by filing affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	RTC bearing sy.No.38/1P
02	Ex-A-2:-	Legal Notice dated 27.10.2017
03	Ex-A-3:-	Reply to the notice by OP No.1 dated 02.11.2017
04	Ex.A-4:-	Proposal Form and Acknowledgement
05	Ex.A-5:-	Letter from complainant to Lead Bank Asst. General Manager dated 27.12.2017.
06	Ex.A-6:-	2 Postal receipts and 2 postal acknowledgements

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Letter from complainant to OP No.1 dated 11.10.2017
02	Ex.B-2:-	Letter from one P.R. Venkateshreddy to OP No.1 dated 11.10.2017
02	Ex-B-2:-	4 proposal forms and 4 acknowledgements

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT

Rhr.