Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd.

**Advocate.sonia** · 09-02-2009, 04:16 PM

BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.

FA.No.1598/2006 against CC.No.11/2006 District Consumer Forum, Anantapur.

Between:

Smt.V.Venkatalakshmamma, W/o.late Nagabhushana,

Aged about 40 years, R/o.Neelavandlapalli Village,

Nallacheruvu Mandal, Anantapur Dist.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

1.The Secretary,

Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd.

Nallacheruvu Village and Mandal,

Anantapur Dist.

2.The General Manager,,

Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.

Subash Road, Anantapur.

3.The Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

R.F.Road, Anantapur.

…Respondents/Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.N.Aswartha Narayan.

Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.O.Manohar Reddy and A.Jaya Raju

(for R.1and R.2) Smt.I.Maamu Vani (for R.3)

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON'BLE LADY MEMBER,

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Lady Member)

*******

1. Aggrieved by the order dt.4.11.2006 in CC.No.11/2006 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Anantapur, the complainant preferred this appeal.

2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the wife of late Nagabhushana, who availed loan from opposite party No.1 and got his life insured with opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.1 under Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy for Rs.1,00,000/- by paying Rs.10/- towards insurance premium. Complainant is the nominee under the said policy. The complainant submits that the life assured died of a mad dog bite on 26.3.2001 while undergoing treatment. The dog bite injury was received on 18.11.2000. He was treated in Government Hospital, Kadiri as an out patient, and thereafter he was admitted in Dr.Prabhakara Naidu Hospital at Kadiri for better treatment, and ultimately died on 26.3.2001. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and informed about the death of her husband and also submitted relevant documents. Opposite party No.1 passed a resolution and informed opposite party No.2 for settlement of claim, vide letter dt.4.4.2001. Opposite party No.2 also informed the same to opposite party No.3, but there is no response from opposite party No.3 with respect to settlement of claim. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice on 28.5.2005, but there was no response. After receipt of legal notice, opposite party No.3 replied on 3.6.2006 stating that no claim is pending with them. On 15.7.2005, opposite party No.3 gave another reply requesting the complainant to send Xerox copies of the documents available with them. Even after submission of these documents, they did not settle the claim.

3. Opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that late Nagabhushana was a member and loanee of the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Ltd. Thavalamarri and not a member and loanee of Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, Nallacheruvu in the year 2000. Subsequently, this society was merged into Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, Nallacheruvu in July, 2005 and there is no cause of action against this Society.

4. Opposite party No.2 filed counter stating that the complainant has not sent any claim through this opposite party and that the death of late Nagabhushana was intimated to opposite party No.3 by opposite party No.1 on 04.04.2001 and there is direct correspondence between the complainant and opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.1 and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2.

5. Opposite party No.3 filed counter stating that late Nagabhushana died on 26.3.2001 and the present complaint ought to have been filed within two years from the date of death , whereas the present complaint was filed on 6.12.2005 and as such it was barred by limitation. It further contended that neither the complainant nor opposite parties 1 and 2 complied the requirements of the policy in spite of several reminders and therefore, they closed the claim as “No claim”. The complainant also did not prove that the deceased died due to a mad dog bite and did not examine any doctor or file any medical treatment record to prove that this is a case of dog bite and in the absence of any relevant record there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.

6. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced ie. Exs.A.1 to A.12 and B.1 to B.13 dismissed the complaint.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal. It is not in dispute that the husband of the complainant had taken a Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy valid from 1.2.2001 to 31.1.2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- by paying Rs.10/- towards insurance premium, wherein the complainant is the nominee. It is also not in dispute that the complainant’s husband died on 26.3.2001. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the complaint is barred by limitation. We observe from the record that the Insurance Company repudiated the claim only on 24.6.2002 and thereafter through their reply notice dt.3.6.2005 and 15.7.2005 and this complaint was filed on 6.12.2005. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is not barred by limitation. The second contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that there is absolutely no proof on the record to state that the deceased died due to dog bite. Ex.A.1 is dated 28.3.2001 which is said to have been issued by Dr.P.Prabhakar Naidu stating that the deceased had gone to Government Hospital, Kadiri for treatment and after ten days he came back on 28.11.2000 with a complaint of hydrophobia, which was not treated by him. Ex.A.2 is the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer stating that the deceased died due to dog bite on 26.3.2001. Ex.A.3 is the certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Kadiri that the deceased was treated as out patient for a mad dot bite on 18.11.2000. It is pertinent to note that Ex.A4 was issued by the President, Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Ltd. Tavalamarri in which it is stated that the deceased died due to dog bite and was directed to be buried in the presence of the elders of the village. We are of the considered view that these documents establish that the deceased died due to dog bite. Even after opposite party No.1 forwarded the claim to opposite party No.3 there is no response and only after the complainant got issued legal notice on 28.5.2005, opposite party No.3 replied stating that the claim is baseless and is closed as “No claim”. Since the repudiation of the claim on the ground that there is no basis to state that the deceased died due to dog bite is unjustified, we may term it as deficiency of service on the part of Insurance Company, the third opposite party.

8. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the Insurance Company, the third opposite party to pay the policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of repudiation ie. 3.6.2005 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.3,000/-. The case against opposite parties 1 and 2 is dismissed without costs. Time for compliance four weeks.

PRESIDENT(DAR) LADY MEMBER(MS) MALE MEMBER(KS)

Dt:18.03.2009.

**adv.singh** · 02-06-2010, 10:17 AM

C.C. No. 23/2006

Thiru S. Sivakumar,

S/o. S. Sundararaju,

D.No.47, Raghavendra Street,

Komarapalayam,

Tiruchengode Taluk,

Namakkal District. .. Complainant.

.Vs.

1. M/s. Komarapalayam Primary

Agricultural Co-op. Bank Ltd.,

Rep. by its Secretary,

D.No.215, Salem Main Road,

Komarapalayam.

2. The District Registrar of

Co-operative Societies,

Namakkal Town & District. ..Opposite Parties.

This complaint coming on for final hearing before us on 11.11.2009 in the presence of Thiru L. Dakshinamoorthy, Advocate for Complainant and of Thiru S. Thiagarajan, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2 called absent, set exparte and after hearing of both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following order:
ORDER

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The crux of the complaint is:-

The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the 1st opposite party bank vide two fixed deposits of Rs.50,000/- each on 18.10.2004 for a period of 6.1/2 years with interest at the rate of 11.5% per annum. On the request of the 1st opposite party the complainant renewed the deposit for a further period of 90 days. The complainant states that the rate of interest originally agreed was 11.5% per annum but the opposite party mentioned the rate of interest as 5% per annum in the FDR bearing Nos.TGE-AB-066787 and 066788. Though the complainant has declined the 1st opposite party forced the complainant to accept the FDR by assuming that the maturity will be paid on 18.10.2005. The 1st opposite party has not paid the maturity amount to the complainant even after maturity. The complainant had made repeated request but the 1st opposite party gave evasive replies. The complainant then issued lawyer notice but inspite of the same the 1st opposite party has not returned the maturity among. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party and has lodged this complaint for return of Rs.1,54,796/- with interest at the rate of 11.5% per annum, compensation, cost etc.

2. The crux of the 1st opposite party’s contention in the written version is:-

The 1st opposite party contends that as per the circular of the Salem District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd and from the State Registrar’s letter with effect from 06.06.2003 it has been decided to return the fixed deposits made at higher rate of interest i.e.11.5% or else to renew the same for the lower rate of interest i.e.5%. This was intimated to the complainant and he agreed for the same. The 1st opposite party contends that on maturity of the fixed deposit the was ready to pay Rs.77,398/- with 5% interest but the complainant refused to accept the same and demanded 11.5% interest. The 1st opposite party is ready and willing to pay Rs.78,352 + 78,352 = Rs.1,56,704/- complainant. But the complainant is demanding 11.5% for the subsequent renewal also which cannot be granted as per the circular of the Central Cooperative Bank and Cooperative Registrar. There is no deficiency in service on their part hence the complaint has to be dismissed.

3. The complainant to prove his case has filed proof affidavit along with 5 documents and the same has been marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The opposite party has filed proof affidavit along with 12 documents and the same has been marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B12.

4. The point for consideration is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the

Opposite Parties and if so to what relief the Complainant is

entitled for?

5. POINT:-The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the 1st opposite party bank vide two fixed deposits of Rs.50,000/- each on 20.10.2004 for a period of 6.1/2 years with interest at the rate of 11.5% per annum. On the request of the 1st opposite party the complainant had renewed the deposit for a further period of 90 days. At the time of renewal the 1st opposite party mentioned the prevailing rate of interest i.e.5% per annum in the FDR bearing Nos.TGE-AB-066787 and 066788. Both the original fixed deposit receipts has been produced and placed before us as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 by the complainant. The 1st opposite party contends that as per the circular of the Salem District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd and from the State Registrar’s letter with effect from 06.06.2003 it has been decided to return the fixed deposits made at higher rate of interest i.e. 11.5% or else to renew the same for the lower rate of inerest i.e.5%. This was intimated to the complainant and he agreed for the same. The 1st opposite party has not produced and placed before us any proof to show that the complainant was intimated about the circular. In this circumstances we are not inclined to accept that the complainant voluntarily agreed for lower interest and re-invested the amount. Infact the complainant was forced to renew since the 1st opposite party was not able to return the maturity amount to the complainant. The complainant alleges that the 1st opposite party has not paid the fixed deposit amount to the complainant even after maturity. The complainant had made repeated request but the 1st opposite party gave evasive replies. The complainant then issued lawyer notice, but, inspite of the same the 1st opposite party has not returned the maturity among. The lawyer notice and the acknowledgement obtained by the complainant has been produced and placed before us as Ex.A3 to Ex.A5. The 1st opposite party on the other hand contends that on maturity of the fixed deposit the was ready to pay Rs.77,398/- with 5% interest but the complainant refused to accept the same and demanded 11.5% interest. The complainant cannot demand 11.5% interest for the subsequent renewal period. The prevailing rate of interest at the time of renerwal can only be granted by the 1st opposite party. If the complainant is not willing to renew for the lower interest offered by the 1st opposite party he can very well refuse to renew his fixed deposit receipts. No fault can be attributed on the 1st opposite party on this score. But the question is the 1st opposite party was not in a position to pay the amount on maturity and hence they have forced the complainant to renew the same at lower rate of interest that is the dispute. Non-payment of the amount to the complainant by the 1st opposite party on maturity of the amount and forcing the complainant to renew the fixed deposit is certainly a shortcoming in service on the part of the opposite party. The 1st opposite party alleges that they are ready to pay the amount and the complainant had not turned up. If it is true the 1st opposite party was ready and willing to pay the fixed deposit maturity amount to the complainant they would have produced and placed before us any communication sent by them to the complainant. In fact the 1st opposite party has not even replied to the lawyer notice sent by him. If they are ready and willing to pay the maturity amount to the complainant then bonafidely they should have sent reply instructing the complainant to collect the maturity amount. But the 1st opposite party has maintained stoic silence throughout and only after the present complaint is lodged they have stated that they are ready and willing to pay the maturity amount to the complainant. Even during the pendency they could have paid the amount to the complainant but that too have not been done. In this circumstances we are not inclined to accept the contention of the 1st opposite party that they was ready and willing to pay the maturity amount but the complainant had refused to receive the same. If the payment has been made to the complainant there is no question of the complainant knocking the doors of this Forum. In view of the above discussion we have no hesitation to hold the act of the 1st opposite party as deficiency in service. And the non-payment of the fixed deposit amount to the complainant on maturity would have definitely resulted in mental agony to the complainant and as such he is entitled to get compensation on that account. No case has been made out against the 2nd opposite party.

6. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,54,796/- being the fixed deposits made vide FDR bearing Nos.TGE-AB-066787 and 066788 to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of deposit till date of payment. Further the 1st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,500/- as cost of the complaint. Time for payment one month from the date of this order.

Pronounced by us in Open Forum, this the 26th day of November,2009.

Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd.

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd.

Similar Threads

Primary Agricultural Co-operative

extortion by cooperative housing society members

Denduluru Large Seized Cooperative Society

Ravinuthala Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society

The Ahore Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions