Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/86/2017

Smt.Rudramma W/o late K.Veerabhadrappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri.H.S.Ramanujam

06 Aug 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON :28/08/2017

DISPOSED ON:04/08/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 86/2017 DATED:4th AUGUST 2018

 

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

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

                        BSc.,MBA., DCA.,

LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS

1. Smt.Rudramma W/o late K.Veerabhadrappa, aged about 65 years.   2. K.V.Rudhraswamy S/o Late K.Veerabhadrappa, Aged about 48 years.   3. K.V.Rajshekar S/o Late K.Veerabhadrappa, Aged about 40 years.   4. K.V.Chandrashekar S/o Late K.Veerabhadrappa, Aged about 40 years, Advocate.   5.K.V Yathish, S/o Late K.Veerabhadrappa, Aged about 38 Years.   All are Agriculturist, R/o Sondekola Village,Chitradurga   (Rep by Smt/Sri.H.S. Ramanujam, Advocate)

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Manager, Union Bank of India, Church Road, Chitradurga.   2. The Branch Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance CompanyLtd., No.69,2nd Floor, J.P & Devi Jambukeshwar Arcade, Millers road, Bangalore-560052. (Rep by Smt/Sri.M. Suresh,  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 partiesto direct the OPs to pay Rs.11,18,588/-, the insured amount along with current interest andto grant such other reliefs.

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that,the husband of the complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2 to 5 late Sri. K. Veerabhadrappa owned agricultural lands at Sondekola village, Chitradurga Taluk bearing sy.Nos15/1A1 measuring 4 acres, 09-guntas, sy.No.15/1C1 measuring 2-acres 02-guntas, sy No.29/8 measuring 1-acre 05-guntas sy.No.29/6 measuring 1-acre 29-guntas, sy No.29/7 measuring 1-acre 19-guntas, sy.No.14/1 measuring 3-acre 01-guntas, sy. No.15/2B1 ,measuring 29-guntas, sy.No.15/1B measuring 2-acre 01-gunta, sy.No.29/4 measuring 2-acre 13-guntas, sy,No.29/2 measuring 1-acre 35-guntas, sy.No.26/4 measuring 5-acre 25-guntas, sy.No.15/8 measuring 4-acres 11-guntas and sy.No.15/7A measuring 1-acre 34-guntas.  During the life time of said late K. Veerabhadrappa had taken insurance on the said lands which all rain fed lands for raising maize through the OPs under Pradhanamanthri Fasal Bhima Yojana (PMFBY).  Accordingly, OP No.1 and 2 have collected insurance premium of Rs.11,877-52 paise on 02.08.2016 and Rs.694-55 paise on 31.8.2016 from late K. Veerabhadrappa, the father of the complainant Nos.2 to 5 through his account which is maintained in the OP No.1 Bank.  The OP No.1 also issued acknowledgements to the same.  After collecting the amount from the said K. Veerabhadrappa, the same has been send by the OP No.1 to OP No.2 on 02.08.2016 within the time fixed by the Government.  Further it is submitted that, the Sondekola region did not receive adequate rainfall and there was a drought in the region and consequently crops were failed.  The Government Surveyor also visited the spot and conducted survey and given report that, there was about 85% of crop loss in and around Sondikola village, Chitradurga Taluk.  Further they have approached the OP No.1 Bank claiming the insurance amount that was assured by both the OPs under Pradhanamanthri Fasal Bhima Yojana (PMFBY).  The OP No.1 assured to release the insurance amount.  Accordingly, complainants waited for many days and the OP No.1 and 2 have not taken any care to release the insurance amount till this day.  Further it was submitted that, all other farmers who have insured their crops under the above said scheme in and around Sondekola village have received the insurance amount but, unfortunately the OP No.1 and 2 have given lame excuses to the complainants to release the insurance claim amount.  It was a clear cut deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  The complainants further submitted that, OP No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the insurance amount of Rs.6,27,747/-.  Out of that 85% of the loss of crop amount will be Rs.5,33,585/- with interest in total, the complainants have claimed Rs.11,18,588/-.  The complainants have issued legal notices to the OPs on 26.07.2017, the same has been served to the OPs but, they have not replied the same. The cause of action for this complaint arose on when the father of the complainants have issued legal notice on 26.07.2017 at Chitradurga, 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. M. Suresh, 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 father of complainant No.1 to 5 has remitted the insurance premium to OP No.1 and in turn the OP No.1 send the same to OP No.2 well in time as fixed by the Government.  Further it is stated that, the surveyor appointed by the Government has inspected the spot and calculated the loss of the crop at 85%.  The main contention of the OP No.1 is that, within the cutoff date, they have send the entire premium amount to the OP No.2.  Further it is admitted that, the OP No.1 has collected the amount from the father of complainant No.2 to 5 and send the same to OP No.2 on 02.08.2016 for the year 2016-17.  The OP No.2 has given acknowledgement for receiving the premium amount from the OP No.1 and also OP No.2 has send their employee by name Balaraj for collecting the list of the insurers.  Hence, the OP No.2 is liable to pay the compensation, therefore the complaint as against OP No.1 is liable to be dismissed.

According to the version filed by the OP No.2 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 Union Bank of India 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 deceased K. Veerabhadrappa were 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 No.4 himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on documents Ex A-1 to A-12 and closed their side.OP No.1 has examined one Sri. Sudhish. S, the Branch Manager as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-4 and closed their side.  OP No.2 has examined one Sri. Alok Kumar Gupta 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 complainantsprove 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 asfollows.

 

        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 father of the complainants No.2 to 5 by name K. Veerabhadrappa is having agricultural lands at Sondekola village, Chitradurga 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.  After payment towards the premium, the father of the complainant No.2 to 5 died.  After the death of their father, the complainants have filed claim petition before the OP No.1.  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 02.08.2016.  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 father of the complainant No.2 to 5 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 father of complainant No.2 to 5 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, the same have been marked as Ex.B-1 to B-4, which clearly shows that,the OP No.1 has collected the premium amount from the father of the complainants 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 complainants.  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 theOP 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 complainants.  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 complainants 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.5,33,585/- to the complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint 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 costs of this proceedings to the complainants. 

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 04/08/2018 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. Sri. Sudhish. S, the Branch Manager by filing affidavit evidence.

DW-2:- Sri. Alok Kumar Gupta, by filing affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Genological Tree
02	Ex-A-2:-	Death Certificate of K. Veerabhadrappa
03	Ex-A-3:-	PMFBY Notification
04	Ex.A-4:-	Bank Pass Book
05	Ex.A-5:-	Crop insurance coverage list
06	Ex.A-6:-	Acknowledgements 11 in numbers
07	Ex.A-7:-	Legal Notice dated 26.07.2017
08	EX.A-8:-	Postal Receipt and acknowledgement
09	Ex.A-9:-	Postal Receipt and acknowledgement
10	Ex.A-10 to 12:-	Status reports

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

 

01	Ex-B-1:-	Insurance Scheme Details
02	Ex-B-2:-	12 Acknowledgements
03	Ex-B-3:-	Letter dated 10.07.2017 by OP No.2 to OP No.1
04	Ex.B-4:-	Bank Statement

 

 

LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Rhr.