Date of filing: 24-6-2017 Date of order : 27-2-2018
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, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Tuesday, 27th day of February, 2018
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 52 / 2017
- Mekala Maruthi Vara Prasad Reddy,
S/o Bayapu Reddy, Aged about 25 years,
- Mekala Aravinda Reddy, S/o Bayapu Reddy,
Aged about 32 years,
Both are residents of D. No.1/98,
Kondareddypalli (V),
Vemula (M), Pulivendula
Kadapa, YSR District -516 421. … Complainants.
Vs.
- The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Pulivendula Branch,
Kadapa District.
- The Regional Officer,
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd.,
Regional Office, 8th Floor,
United India Towers,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500 029. ….. Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 21-2-2018 in the presence of complainant appeared in-person and Opposite Party no.1 called absent and set exparte on 13-10-2017 and Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate, for Opposite party no.2, and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1) The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act), praying this Forum to direct the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.3,430/- towards premium amount along with interest at 24% p.a. from 13-1-2014 till realization, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this complaint.
2) The averments of the complaint in brevity are as follows:- The complainants have agriculture lands an extent of Ac.9.40 cents in the name of First complainant and an extent of ac.9.41 cents in the name of second complainant in Nallacheruvupalli under various survey numbers and they have raised Bengal Gram Crop. During the year 2014 they have raised Bengal Gram Crop in their lands of 9.40 cents and 9.41 cents respectively and they decided to insure their crop for the year 2014-2015. On 13-12-2014 they received D.D. bearing No.452160, Dt. 13-12-2014 from S.B.I. Pulivendula Branch, Kadapa District for an amount of Rs.3,430/- towards national agricultural insurance scheme premium in favour of AIC of India Ltd., Hyderabad i.e., second O.P.. The above mentioned premium amount was paid by four farmers in one D.D. i.e., complainants 1 and 2 and M. Munemma W/o M. Bayapureddy and M. Bayapureddy S/o Monda Reddy and D.D. along with Annexure-8, National Agriculture insurance scheme proposal form,1B, Adangal of both complainants and two other farmers referred above applications were sent to opposite party no.2 and O.P.no.2 has scrutinized the applications and send it back to the complainants after 2 years 4 months wide letter NAIS/RABI/2014-2015NL/AP/R/36/02/77,78, Dt. 25-4-2017 stating that the date of harvest of Bengal Gram Crop was not come under instructions of national agriculture insurance scheme. But applications of remaining farmers was not returned so far. O.P.no.1 has mentioned in D.D. was valid for 3 months only but O.P.no.2 had taken time 2 years and 4 months for scrutinize the applications.
3) After return of applications by O.P.no.2 the complainants approached O.P.no.1 for cancellation of D.D. No.415260, Dt. 13-12-2014. But O.P.no.1 refused to cancel the D.D. and informed that it was valid for 3 months only, so they have not refunded D.D. amount. The complainants addressed a letter to O.P.no.1 on 19-5-2017 under registered post with acknowledgement due. O.P.No.2 not sent any reply. If the company has declared the crop insurance to the farmers they would last the loss of crop insurance during the year 2014-2015. Thus, the services of O.P.no.2 is deficiency. O.P.no.1 was added as formal party and no claim against O.P.no.1. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
4) Opposite party no.1 remained exparte.
5) O.P.no.2 filed written version denying allegations in the complaint and called upon the complainant to prove all the allegations.
6) It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable as the same is an attempt on the part of the complainant to abuse the process of law under NAIS optional coverage is applicable for loanee farmers. The complainants 1 and 2 have said to have been raised Bengal Gram Crop in their field and sent D.D. bearing No.452160,Dt. 13-12-2014 for Rs.3430 but the same was returned to the complainants as date of sowing mentioned in the proposal form is not as per the scheme provisions. As per the operational modalities of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, the non loanee farmers completely filled the proposal form along with date of sowing certificate, duly filled in by the farmer and certified by concerned appropriate state agency. The age of crop on the date of submitting proposal should not be more than one month and crop insurance declaration should be submitted by a separate D.D. towards premium by non loanee farmers. Complainants no.1 and 2 have not filled the proposal forms accordingly. Hence, their forms were returned. The proposal forms which were not complying the rules and regulations had been returned to respective farmers but there was some proposal forms which were rejected but, inadvertently, not returned further noticed subsequently and send them along with D.Ds with some delay. Thus there is some delay in returning the D.D. but the same is not deficiency in service as the complainants did not fulfill the criteria of the scheme. The Hon’ble national commission also held mere payment of insurance premium will not entitle the insured for compensation. Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no.2. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7) No oral evidence has been adduced by the parties but on behalf of the complainants Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 are marked and on behalf of the opposite party no.2 Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are marked.
8) Complainant filed written arguments, O.P.No.2 not filed written arguments.
9) Heard arguments on both sides and considered the written arguments filed by the complainants and perused the material placed on record carefully.
10) The points that arises for determination are ;
- Whether is there any deficiency in service on the part of O.P.no.2 as pleaded by the complainants?
- Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs claimed against O.P.no.2. If so to what extent ?
- To that relief ?
11)Points no.1 and 2 :- These two points are connected to one another, Hence they are taken up for discussion together for the sake of convenience.
12) Learned counsel for complainants contended that because of unnecessary delay in returning the D.D. after more than 2 years the complainants could not encash the D.D. from the bank and the same has been happened due to deficiency of service of opposite party no.2 and the same has been admitted by O.P.no.2 in page 3 of the written version in last paragraph. Therefore the complainant proved there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.no.2 and complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed.
13) Per contra learned counsel for O.P.no.2 contended though there was some delay in returning the D.D. of complainants but the same is not intentional but was inadvertent and the same does not amount to deficiency in service as the proposal form of complainant itself is not in proper procedure. Hence, no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.no.2 and complainant is not entitled for the releifs and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
14) Having heard we have minutely perused the material placed on record and considered the voluminous documentary evidence placed on record by the parties.
15) In this case there is no dispute that the complainants are agriculturists owning lands and raised crops during the year 2014-2015, they send D.Ds Ex.A2 for Rs.3,430/-, Dt.13-12-2014 to O.P.no.2 for crop insurance towards premium of agriculture insurance scheme with O.P.No.2 on 25-4-2017. The documentary evidence placed by complainants under Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 proved the same. Infact O.P.no.2 also admitted in his written version about the sending of D.D. for Rs.3,430/- Dt. 13-12-2014 by complainants towards crop insurance under the scheme NAIS with O.P.no.2. In page 3 of written version filed by O.P.no.2 in the last paragraph it is pleaded by O.P.no.2 as follows “ in reply to para 4 , it is admitted by the opposite party no.2 that there is some delay in returning the demand draft , but at the same time, it is reiterated here that the O.P.no.2 cannot go beyond the provisions of the scheme and settle the claims in violation of the scheme. The proposal forms submitted by the complainants do not fulfill the criteria of the scheme. In these forms, the date of sowing is not mentioned as per the scheme provisions. In this regard, it is necessary to reiterate and reaffirm that insurance services were on offer under NAIS and ash such the claim, if any was payable as per mechanism provided under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. Hence, there is no deficiency of services on the part of opposite party no.2.
16) Though O.P.no.2 contended that the claim of crop insurance by complainants cannot be honoured as the proposal forms did not contain the particulars of sowing of crop etc., But in this case the complainants have not claimed any crop insurance for the loss of their Bengal Gram Crop. The complainants filed this complaint that the D.D. sent by them under Ex. A2 was kept with O.P.no.2 for 2 years 4 months and returned later stating particulars of proposal form in crop insurance are not furnished in the annexure. Hence returned. The grievance of complainants is had the O.P. returned the D.D. within 3 months from the date of their sending to O.P.no.2 the complainants would have encashed the D.D. during the period of validity i.e., within 3 months from the date of its purchase but O.P.s no.2 neither accepted the proposal form within reasonable time for crop insurance nor returned the same rejecting the proposal of annexure for crop insurance to enable the complainants to encash their D.D. Now the complainants case is that because of the inordinate delay on the part of O.P.no.2 they are unable to encash the D.D. from the bank where it was purchased by them to sent O.P.no.2 for crop insurance along with annexure. Keeping the D.D. sent by complainants along with annexure and returning it after 2 years 4 months by refusing to accept the application for crop insurance of complainants certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.PO.no.2. Therefore we hold the complainants proved deficiency in service on the part of O.P.no.2 and complainants are entitled for the D.D amount from O.P.no.2 as they are unable to encash the D.D. as it was not returned in time to complainants by O.P.no.2. The opposite party no.2 also caused mental agony to the complainants for not sending the D.D. in time and complainants are entitled for Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony, though not Rs.2,00,000/- claimed. The complainants also entitled for costs of Rs.3,000/- accordingly points 1 and 2 are answered in favour of complainant.
17) In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.3,430/- ( Rupees Three Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Only) the cost of Demand Draft with interest at 9% p.a. from 26-4-2017 i.e., date of filing of complaint, till the date of realization and shall also pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousands only) towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousands only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts i.e., (3,000+3,000=Rs.6,000/-) shall carry interest at 9% p.a. till realization. The complaint against O.P.no.1 is dismissed as he is only a formal party and no relief is claimed. Rest of the claim of complainants is disallowed.
Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 27th day of February, 2018
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: nil For Opposite party : nil
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant :-
Ex:A1:- Original letter No.NAIS/RABI/2014-15NL/AP/R/36/02/77,78,
DT.25-04-2017 issued by O.P-2.
Ex: A2:- Copy of Demand draft No.452160, dt 13-12-2014 for Rs.3,430/-.
Ex: A3:- P/c of Annexure-VIII form in favour of the 1st complainant.
Ex: A4:- P/c of E-Asdhar Card of 1st Complainant.
Ex: A5:- P/c of S.B.A/c No.19143027599 of the 1st Complainant.
Ex: A6:- Copy of Original 1 B Namoona (ROR) of 1st Complainant..
Ex: A7:- Copy of Original Adangal / Phani of 1st complainant (6 numbers).
Ex: A8:- P/c of Pattadar pass book of 1st complainant.,
Ex: A9:- Annexure-VIII form in favour of the 2nd complainant..
Ex: A10:- P/c of E-Aadhar card of 2nd complainant..
Ex: A11:- P/c of S.B.A/c No.19143027714 of the 2nd Complainant.
Ex: A12:- P/c of Pattadar pass book of 2nd complainant.,
Ex: A13:- Copy of Original 1 B Namoona (ROR) of 2nd Complainant..
Ex: A14:- Copy of Original Adangal / Pahani of 2nd Complainant (5 numbers).
Ex: A15:- P/c of letter from 1st complainant to O.P-2, DT.19-05-2017.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents :–
Ex:B1:- P/c of National Agriculture insurance Scheme- Annexure-1.
Ex:B2:- P/c of Government of A.P. Notification, Dt.29-11-2014- Annexure-2,
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Mekala Maruthi Vara Prasad Reddy,
2) Mekala Aravinda Reddy,
S/o Bayapu Reddy,
both are resident of D. No.1/98,
Kondareddypalli (V), Vemula (M), Pulivendula (Taluq),
Kadapa, YSR District -516 421.
3) The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Pulivendula Branch,
Kadapa District.
4) Sri G.Trivikram Singh, Advocate, kadapa, for O.P.no.2
P.R.
