Date of filing: 16-8-2016 Date of order : 23-6-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, LADY MEMBER
Friday, 23rd day of June 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 62 / 2016
Sri G. Thirupal Reddy, S/o Late G. Thippa Reddy,
aged about 81 years, Residing at Door No. 2-4-167,
Muddanur Road, Pulivendula town, YSR district. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
The Chief Manager, State Bank of India,
Y.S. Raja Reddy Street, Pulivendula town and Mandal,
YSR district. ………Opposite party.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 09-6-2017 in the presence of Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for Complainant and Sri S.S.D. Ramaswamy, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- the Complainant is an advocate and he is lawful owner of the land an extent of Ac. 18.31 cents under the survey Nos. 518/3, 518/6, 518/7, 393/13, 393/14, 393/15, 393/16, 393/17, 228/1, 545/1A, 227, 417/2 and 225 situated at Agadur revenue village fields of Thondur mandal of YSR Kadapa District.
3. Opposite party granted an agricultural loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22-8-2014 for raising groundnut crop for the account bearing No. 11146311226 and the opposite party have deducted an amount of Rs. 5000/- from Complainant account towards crop insurance premium and issued a receipt to that effect and the same si reflected in the statement of account under account No. 11146311226 issued by the O.P. and the remaining amount of Rs. 95,000/- disbursed to the Complainant. In the year 2014 for getting crop insurance, there was famine and the crops were consequently failed due to draught. The Complainant came to know from reliable source that the insurance company has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,424/- per acre towards crop loss to the farmers of his village and the Complainant has not received any amount from insurance company, the Complainant is entitle to receive an amount of Rs. 44,383/- towards crop insurance for the lands of the Complainant. The complaint did not receive any crop insurance from the insurance company though the Complainant paid the insurance premium of Rs. 5,000/-. It appears the O.P. has not remitted the amount collected from the Complainant towards insurance premium to be paid to the agricultural insurance company. If the O.P. had remitted the insurance premium to the concerned insurance company, the Complainant would have got the crop insurance of Rs. 44,383/- for the crop loss from the concerned insurance company, as such there was clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The Complainant came to know that his villagers were already received the crop insurance and the same was credited to their bank accounts though they paid the insurance premium at later date i.e. 12-9-2014 but said two villagers by name A. Satyanarayan Reddy and A. Adminarayanamma were received crop insurance for the relevant period. The Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards insurance premium within the time prescribed for the scheme by the agricultural insurance company.
4. The Complainant got issued a legal notice on 21-12-2015 through his advocate and the same was served to O.P. The office copy of registered legal notice, postal receipt and the served acknowledgement card are herewith filed for kind perusal of the Hon’ble forum. The Complainant received reply from the O.P. with false allegations. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to direct the O.P. (a) to pay a sum of Rs. 44,383/- being the insurance award amount with interest @ 12% from the date of award till the date of realization, (b) to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service on the part of O.P., (c) to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses of the complaint, (d) to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and (e) to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of legal notice in the interest of justice.
5. Counter filed by the Opposite party that the complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts. The Complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations except those which are specifically admitted herein. The Complainant is sanctioned agricultural loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22-8-2014 and that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is withdrawn by Complainant on the same date. But the counterfoil does not disclose that Rs. 5,000/- is withdrawn for the purpose of crop insurance. In the year 2014 declared as draught and a sum of Rs. 2750/- is awarded towards crop insurance per hectare. Here it is to be noted that asper the norms issued by the Agriculture Insurance Company of India, Hyderabad only the farmers who have availed loan on or before 31-7-2014 only are eligible for claiming crop insurance. The nodal banks have to submit declaration by 31-8-2014. The copy of the norms issued by the said company is enclosed for kind perusal of the Hon’ble forum. In the present case loan itself is taken on 22-8-2014, so the Complainant is not eligible for claiming crop insurance, as such this O.P. is not paid any insurance amount and the insurance amount issuing authority is Agriculture Insurance company. The said insurance copany has not issued any insurance amount of the Complainant.
6. Here the agriculture Insurance company is a necessary party to the proceedings, without adding the said company as a necessary party and the complaint is not maintainable. This O.P. bank acts as per the instructions of Agriculture insurance company so this O.P. is not at all fault and is not liable in any way and there is no deficiency of service on the part of this O.P.
7. Insurance company awarded insurance, the Complainant is eligible only around for Rs. 15,000/-. This is evident on compared with other insurers namely Adinarayanamma and Satyanarayana reddy. The total insured amount will not be paid it will be decided on the calculations made by agricultural insurance company. As such the claim of Complainant claiming Rs. 44,383/- is exorbitant. No mental agony is caused by this respondent as such the O.P. cannot ask for compensation. The said villagers Satyanarayana Reddy and Adminarayanamma have received insurance amount this O.P submits that it is the insurance company under what circumstances they are paid and this complaint is not paid. Each case differs from person to person. Because they are paid, this O.P. cannot be blamed. The Complainant should have questioned the bank in the year 2014 itself keeping silent for all these days he cannot urge before the forum. The Complainant has not paid insurance amount of Rs. 5,000/- within the time prescribed by the insurance company. To the legal notice issued by the Complainant, this O.P has issued reply notice also stating that it is insurance company which prescribes norms in paying insurance amount. The reply notice is not with false allegations. Therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs in the interests of justice.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him or not?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party or not?
iii. To what relief?
9. On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A11 were marked and on behalf of opposite party Ex. B1 is marked.
10. Point Nos. i & ii. As per complaint and counter the Complainant had not paid loan amount in time. The Complainant had taken loan on22-8-2014 but the remaining farmers had availed loan before 31st July 2014 and the Complainant have filed a counterfoil disclosing that he had paid Rs. 5,000/- and the same was withdrawn for the purpose of agriculture insurance. The Complainant paying that two villagers by name A. Satyanarayana Reddy and Adminarayanamma, have received insurance amount but had not filed any piece of evidence to shows that when they have paid insurance premium amount. Each case differs from person to person having insurance amount. As the last date of loan is 31-7-2014 and the Complainant had filed pay slip dt. 22-8-2014 under Ex. A1. Ex. A5 & A6 pay slips and statement of account of A. Narayanamma and A. Sathyanarayana Reddy. They clearly shows that they have paid premium amount in time. As per exhibits on record filed by the Complainant it clearly shows that the Complainant had paid after the dead line of payment i.e. after 31st July 2014. So, as per evidence on record and counterfoil of the Complainant the Complainant is not eligible for any compensation as prayed by him. At the same time there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
11. Point No. iii. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 23rd day of June 2017.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL For Opposite parties : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex.A1 Pay slip issued by the respondent to Complainant dt.22-8-2014.
Ex.A2 P/c of Statement of my loan account No.11146311226 issued by
the respondent dt.17-12-2014,
Ex.A3 Office copy of legal notice dt,21-12-2015.
Ex.A4 Postal Acknowledgement duly signed by the respondent.
Ex.A5 P/c of Pay slip and statement of account of Alavalapati Narayanamma
DT.05-1-2016.
Ex.A6 P/c of Pay slip and statement of account of A. Satyanarayana Reddy
Dt.05-1-2016.
Ex.A7 P/c of Certified copy of Form-1(B) Adangal (ROR) dt.06-07-2015.
Ex.A8 P/c of Agricultural loan pass book issued by the respondent in favour of the complainant dated.27-08-2003.
Ex.A9 Replay notice dt.29-12-2015 issued by the Advocate for the respondent .
Ex.A10 P/c of Pattadar Pass book of A.Satyanarayana Reddy.
Ex.A11 P/c of Pattadar Pass book of A.Adinarayanamma.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party: -
Ex.B 1 P/c of Notification Kharif 2014 dt.14-07-2014 issued by the Agriculture
Insurance company of India Ltd, Hyderabad.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for Complainant.
- Sri S.S.D. Ramaswamy, Advocate for opposite party.
B.V.P
