Karnataka

Gadag

CC/122/2019

Smt Gangubai. Y. Mouneshwarmath - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, SBI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M.V.Mudgal

12 Jun 2020

ORDER

ORDER

 

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SHRI B.S.KERI.MEMBER:

        This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

         2.  The above complaint filed by the complainant, states that she had sowed Maize crop in 2016-17 Khariff Season in her lands and insured the same under PMFBY and paid the premium.

         3.    The averments of the complaint in brief are:

       That the complainant has sowed Maize crop in 2016-17 Khariff Season in her lands bearing sy.Nos.87/*/* and 27/*/* and paid the premium amount under PMFBY to OP No.2 through OP No.1 for a sum assured amount of Rs.1,92,778-00 under Application Nos.925226.  The said crop was good and healthy and the complainant hoped that she would get good yield from the above said crops for the said year.  It is further submitted that, the crop failed completely due to shortfall of rain and suffered loss. The complainant approached the OPs and requested to release the crop insurance, but it went in vain, which shows the deficiency in service.  The other farmers in her village have received the crop insurance amount, but the complainant did not receive the compensation under the above said scheme.  It is further submitted that, the OP No.1 is situated at Gadag District and therefore, this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  Hence there is a deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay Rs. 1,92,778-00, Rs.50,000/-  towards compensation for physical and mental stress, Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.15,000/- towards costs of the proceedings and such other reliefs.

        4.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Forum, the OP No.1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsels.  OP No.1 filed written version, but OP No.2 failed to file written version. 

                        The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.1:-

            5.         OP No.1 and submits that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.   It is true that, the complainant has insured her Maize crop during 2016-17 Khariff season under PMFBY Scheme by paying premium through this OP.  OP No.1 forwarded premium amount to OP No.2 and the same is already informed to the complainants.   The allegations made in para No.3 to 5 of the complaint is denied as false, the same is put to strict proof of the same.   The OP No.2 is only a collecting agent and mediator between the farmers and insurance company and the scope of responsibility of this OP is very limited one.  This OP is neither concerned to the facts of fixing of premium and assessing the loss nor fixing of the compensation to be payable to the farmers.  It is further submitted that, if this Forum comes to the conclusion that, the complainant is entitled to get the crop insurance amount, the same is to be paid by the OP  No.1.   Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

            6.  The complainant filed her Chief affidavit along with 10 documents.  On the other hand, OPs have not filed their Chief Affidavit and documents.

    COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
	Legal Notice
C-2 & 4	Postal receipts
C-3 & 5	Postal acknowledgements
C-6 to 10	Letter by Bank along with statement of accounts

 

            7.      On pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainant and OPs, the following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proved the deficiency in service

on the part of the OPs as averred in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. What Order?

8.   Our findings to the above points are:-

Point No. 1:  Affirmative

Point No. 2:  Partially Affirmative

Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

             9.  POINT NO.1 AND 2:  Both the points are inter-linked and identical. Hence we proceed both the points together.

10.       The Complainant filed this Complaint against the OPs claiming crop insurance amount for the year 2016-17 Khariff season on failure of weather.

11.       The Complainant submits that they have insured her crop with OP’s in the year 2016-17 for the Maize crop for 2016-17 Khariff season under the PMFBY which is Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme. The Complainant/s on good faith and for protection of their crop as per publications and advice of OPs insured his crop sowed in the above said lands situated at Kalakabandi village of Hirevankalagunta Hobli of Koppal District and insured with OP No.2 Insurance company for the yield and paid the total premium amount as stated supra in 2016-17 under PMFBY for the yield.  In this year, Complainant/s experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OP No.1 failed to deposit the insurance amount.  After filing this complaint, before this Forum OP No.2 appeared and filed memo along with statement for having deposited Rs.1,92,778-86 on 19.11.2019 towards claim amount to the complainant’s Bank account through NEFT.    

12.       OP No.1 submits that, they have acted as a mediator between the OP No.2 and complainant and after receiving the premium amount, the total premium amount had been transferred to OP No.2.   OP No.1 submits that, OP No.2 is liable to pay the insurance amount, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against it.  As per the document OP No.2 i.e., claim settlement copy dated 19.11.2019, it is very clear that, OP No.2 has credited an amount of Rs.1,92,778-86 to the account of complainant through NEFT on 19.11.2019 towards crop insurance after filing this Complaint.  Hence, OP No.2 has made delay in making payment of the crop insurance amount.      

13.       On-going through the records on file, it is an undisputed fact that complainant/s has insured her crop with OP No.2 and it is also undisputed fact that she has pad the premium amount that means OP No.2 received the entire premium amount from the complainant/s through OP No.1 Bank.  The disputed fact is that OP No.2 paid the insurance amount after filing this complaint, which is a deficiency of service.

            14.       During the argument, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that, these areas are hit by the draught and the farmers have suffered loss. OP No.1 has done its duty by sending the premium amount to OP No.2, hence. It is not liable to pay any compensation and therefore, complaint against OP No.1 is liable to be dismissed.  Of course OP No.2 has not produced any document to say as to why they have delayed in making payment to the complainant, which shows the negligence on the part of OP No.2.   Hence, the OP No.2 is liable to pay interest on the amount already paid to the complainant and also liable to pay for mental agony and harassment and further litigation charges.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative & Point No.2 is in Partly Affirmative.          

             15.  POINT NO. 3: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaint filed by the complainant is partially allowed. In the result, we pass the following: 

//O R D E R//

            1.  The above Complaint is partially allowed against OP No.2

            2.   The OP No.2 is directed to pay 8% interest on Rs.1,92,778-86 from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

3.  OP No.2 is liable to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant/s towards compensation.  Further, OP No.2 is directed to pay litigation charges of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant/s.

4.  Complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed.

            5.  Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 12^th day of JUNE-2020)

 

                  (Shri B.S.Keri)                               (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

                  MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT