Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/141/2019

R. Vasuki, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Thasildar, And another. - Opp.Party(s)

party in person

13 Oct 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                     PRESIDENT

              TMT. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                                       MEMBER  

 

F.A.No.141/2019

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.13/2018, dated 04.04.2019 on the file of the District Commission, Thiruvarur)

 

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2021.

R. Vasuki,

16/33, M.G.R. Nagar,

Mannarkudi,

Thiruvarur District.                                                                                                                              Appellant/Complainant

 

                    - Vs –

1.    Tahsildar,

       Taluk Office,

       Mannarkudi – 614 001.

       Thiruvarur District.

 

2.    Agricultural Insurance Company of

        India Limited,   

       Andhra Insurance Buildings,

       No.323, Thambu Chetty Street,

       Parrys Corner,

       Chennai – 600 001.                                                                                                                 Respondents/Opposite Parties          

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant             :  Appeared party-in-person

Counsel for the Respondent-1/Opposite Party-1:  M/s. T. Ravikumar,  Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent-2/Opposite Party-2:  M/s. P.S. Kothandaraman, Advocate.

 

              This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 30.09.2021 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE  THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.    

1.        Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the District Commission, Thiruvarur  in C.C.No.11/2018, dated 04.04.2019, the complainant has preferred this appeal under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,  for enhancement of compensation.   

2.       For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvarur.      

3.        The brief facts which are necessary to decide this appeal is as follows;-   

           The complainant is carrying on agricultural operations in agricultural land measuring in 2 Hectores,  74 Acres of agricultural land in Puluthukkudi Sozhanganallur Village. The said land has been insured with the 2^nd opposite party, Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited., under the scheme Crop Insurance Rabi Paddy crops for the year 2016-2017.  As per the yield data provided by the Department of Economics and Statistics, Government of Tamil Nadu for the year 2016-2017 for Rabi Paddy II Crop, all the eligible claims were settled in accordance with the provisions of PMFBY.  As per the said Scheme, for the Alathur village 60% to 80% of insurance amount was paid and for Puluthukkudi Sozhanganallur Village the amount payable was ascertained as 100%.  However, only Rs.90,685/- has been credited in the account of the complainant whereas the damage caused due to drought in all fairness amounting to Rs.1,71,250/- should have been paid under the scheme. Therefore, the opposite party has to pay the balance amount of Rs.80,565/- to the complainant. This shortfall in crediting the crop insurance amount under the abovesaid scheme was due to the mistake committed by the Village Administrative Officer. The case of the complainant is that when the VAO of Alathur Village was holding additional charge of Puluthukkudy Sozhanganallur Village, while affixing the office seal in Chitta and Adangal, in spite of being conversant with the seal of Puluthukkudi Cholinganallur Village where the complainant’s land is situated, affixed the seal of Alathur Village in which the compensation was offered for payment only 68%.  Therefore, due to the mistake committed by the Village Administrative Officer, the complainant cannot be made to suffer.  Hence, the complainant has approached the District Commission with a consumer complaint claiming remaining portion of compensation amount and also for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings with costs.   

4.        Before the District Commission, the 1^st opposite party filed a written version denying all the allegations made in the complaint.  Thereafter, since the opposite party failed to appear before the District Commission, the 1^st opposite party was called absent and set ex-parte. The 2^nd opposite party was also called absent and set ex-parte before the District Commission.        

5.           Before the District Commission, the complainant has filed her proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. Since the opposite parties 1 & 2 were set ex-parte, no document was filed on their side.     

6.           The District Commission after considering the submissions made by both sides and analysing the evidences adduced by the complainant passed an order against the opposite parties 1 & 2 by allowing the complaint in part, assigning the reason that in the absence of Chitta and Adangal pertaining to the extent of yield during the relevant fasilis and previous fasilis, the entire amount claimed by the complainant cannot be granted and thus directed  the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay only a sum of Rs.20,000/- as crop damage under the crop insurance scheme for the concerned fasilis and also to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 25.07.2017 till realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and sufferings undergone by the complainant with costs of Rs.5,000/-.  The complainant is not having satisfied with the above relief, has preferred this appeal for enhancement of relief. 

7.     It is the case of the complainant that her land is situated in the village, Puluthukudi Shozhanganallur. According to the Government’s scheme, for the land situated in Puluthukkudi Sholanganallur Village, 100% compensation ought to have been sanctioned under the crop insurance scheme, instead, the opposite parties have offered only 68% of compensation, as if the complainant land is situated at Alathur Village.  Accordingly a sum of Rs.90,685/- was credited in the complainant’s bank account instead of 100% compensation of Rs.1,71,250/-.  This mistake was committed by the Village Administrative Officer, Alathur Village in the Chitta and Adangal of the land owned by the complainant  since,  at the relevant point of time, the Village Administrative Officer, at Alathur Village who was holding the additional charge of Puluthukkudi Shozhanganallur Village has wrongly affixed the seal of Alathur Village in the Chitta and Adangal of the land owned by the complainant. Hence, the complainant made a representation with the opposite parties but they have not come forward to settle the claim,  on the other hand,  she was made to run pillar to post and therefore she approached the District Consumer Commission for the relief and the District Commission after enquiry allowed the complaint only in part stating that since Chitta and Adangal of the land was not produced before the District Commission to show the actual extent of land that she owned and hence she is not entitled for 100% compensation. But, from the materials placed on record, we find that though the complainant had specifically stated in her complaint that she had owned 2 Hectores, 74 Acres in Puluthukkudi Sholinganallur, the said statement was not denied in the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party. Further, the 2^nd opposite party/insurance company has not shown any interest to conduct the case by filing written version, proof affidavit and therefore we are of the view that the case of the complainant has to be accepted. Considering the above facts, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for 100% compensation of Rs.1,71,250/- and since a sum of Rs.90,685/- had already been credited into the complainant’s bank account remaining amount of Rs.80,565/- ought to have been paid to the complainant by the opposite parties with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of complaint till its realisation. Further, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.10,000/-awarded as compensation for mental agony pain and sufferings undergone by the complainant is on the lower side and the same needs proper enhancement and accordingly, the sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Commission is hereby increased to Rs.25,000/- which would meet the ends of justice.     

8.             In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Commission, directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally

                a)    To pay Rs.80,565/- to the complainant being the balance amount payable under the crop insurance scheme with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of complaint till its realisation,  

                b)  to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(instead of Rs.10,000/-. as compensation for mental agony, pain and sufferings undergone by the complainant   

                c)     The order of the District Commission to pay cost of Rs.5,000/-to the complainant by the opposite parties is confirmed. 

               d)     There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

                       All the above directions shall be complied within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount mentioned in column (b) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till its realisation.  

 

 

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                                                                                         R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/Oct/2021