|
|
THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, HAVERI. Complaints Numbers: 789, 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 800, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065 & 1066 of 2010 Dated this the 8th day of March – 2011. Present:- Shri. Prakash Ballari - President. Smt. Amareshwari Moogi - Member. Between: C-789/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. Smt. Hanumavva W/O: Sannahanumanthappa Bellanakere C-790/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. Smt. Leelavathi W/O V Byatanala R/O; Laxmipura Tq:Hangal Dt;Haveri. C-791/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. Ramappa S/so: Basappa Thotada, R/O; Laxmipura Tq:Hangal Dt;Haveri. C-792/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. Smt. Geetha W/o: Prabhakara Negalur, C-793/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. 1. Ningappa E Jadeda 2. Nagappa E Jadeda 3. Shivaputrappa A/s/o M Negalur, C-794/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. Dayananda S/O: Hanumanthappa Yalivala, C-795/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. Kariyappa Lachamanna Rangapura, R/o: Rangapura Tq: Shirshi Dt;Karawar, C-796/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. Smt. Hanumavva W/o: Siddappa Jogappanavar Since died by his LRs Jogappa Siddappa Jogappanavar, C-797/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. Smt. Shanthavva W/O; Annappa Hangal, C-800/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. Shivaputrappa A/S/o Mudleppa Negalur, All R/O; Laxmipura Tq:Hangal Dt;Haveri. C-1061/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. Smt. Girijamma W/O: Mallappagouda Patil R/o: Savikeri TQ: Hangal Dt;Haveri. C-1062/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. Basappa A Kumbara, R/o: Sammasagi, TQ: Hangal Dt;Haveri. C-1063/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. 1.Hanumanthappa Ganapateppa Dyvajna 2. Ramachandra Ganapateppa Dyvajna, R/o: Savikeri, TQ: Hangal Dt;Haveri. s C-1064/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. 1. Nagappa Gutheppa Doddamani, 2. Virupakshappa Gutteppa Doddamani, R/o: Sammasagi, TQ: Hangal Dt;Haveri. C-1065/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. Topanna Kannappa Saragi, R/o: Balihali, Tq: Hangal Dt;Haveri. C-1066/2010 COMPLAINANT/S. Babu Manjappa Nadara, R/o: Savikeri, Tq:Hangal Dt;Haveri. (By N I Adur, Adv.) V / S Opponents: 1.The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Gejjihalli, TQ: Hangal Dt;Haveri (By V K Kelkar, Adv.) 2. The Managing Director, General Insurance Co., State Level Crop Insurance Cell.18, Krishi Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Hudsan Circle, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore-560 001. (C- 789 to 791 of 2010 By Sri.M.G.Motagi, Adv.) (C-792 to 797 of 2010 & 800 of 2010 By A.S.Patil Adv.) (c-1061 to 1066 of 2010 By Sri. V.S.Aralikatti, Adv. :: JUDGMENT :: Smt. Amareshwari Moogi, Member In these 16 complaints, though the complainants, Nodal Banks are different, but the opponents AIC and disputed facts are common, therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of discussion, we have decided to dispose off these 16 cases by common Judgment. 2. The complainants during the year 2003-04 season they have sown Paddy crops in their respective lands and paid crop insurance premium and submitted documents, through Nodal Bank also furnished necessary documents like RTC, crop declaration certification and proposal form. 3. It is the further common allegation of all these complainants that, due to failure of rainfall during the said season, they were not able to receive any crops from their landed properties. Hence, alleging deficiency in service from the opponents for non payment of requisite insurance amount, they have filed these complaints for proper redressal. Despite repeated requests and demands, the AIC did not respond and made payment to them. 4. In all Complaints OP-1 filed it’s objection as under. These complainants have deposited the premium amount and furnished documents and the same was remitted to the AIC. The crop insurance scheme is floated by the AIC. Therefore, this Nodal bank being an agent in between these complainants & AIC did it’s best service to both the parties. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent No.1 bank in all these cases, prayed to dismiss the claim against the Nodal Bank. 5. The AIC appeared through counsel in all the cases filed it’s objection as under: AIC in it’s objection contending that, there is non-joinder of parties of these complaints. These complaints are time barred. 6. It is submitted that, the crop insurance scheme is floated with the equal financial assistance by the Central and State Govt. The opponent AIC is monitoring the scheme as per the directions of the Central and State Govts. As per the crop insurance scheme, only in case of shortfall in yield of a particular crop, opponent AIC is liable to compensate to the premium holders. 7. The Nodal bank did not submit the individual documents and premium paid receipts furnished by the agriculturists. But on the other hand the Nodal Bank used to send one common Yadi with the name of the persons and payment of premium etc., Therefore, this opponent AIC do not have the individual particulars of these complainants. Since, opponent AIC is responsible to pay the insurance amount to such agriculturists. Whose crops have failed due to the reasons explained in the agreement. But as per the data collected by the opponent AIC based on CCE, there was no shortfall in yield for paddy irrigated crop in Haveri Hobli. Therefore, this opponent is not liable to pay compensation to these complainants. Hence, there is no deficiency in service committed by these complainants as per the C.P.Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss all these cases with cost. 8. The complainants and opponent AIC have filed their affidavits and produced relevant documents to support their case. 9. We have heard the arguments on both the sides. 10. The points, that arise, for our consideration in this case are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents? 2. Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief’s as prayed in the complaint? 3. What order? 11. Our findings to the above points are as per final order: :: R E A S O N S :: 12. Point No: 1 & 2 : The complainants in these cases have filed these complaints against the opponents for recovery of crop insurance amount and also compensation for loss and mental agony along with costs of the proceedings. 13. The opponent AIC in it’s objection statement in the complaint has contended that, these complaints are time barred. According to the opponent AIC, these complainants were filed by these complaints after the date of cause of action. In above cases, claims for the year 2003-04. On perusal of the affidavits filed by these complainants along with IA for condonation of delay while filing the above complaints, we are of the opinion that, delay should be condoned liberally since, these Farmers are coming from villages and they were not properly educated. Hence, we condone the delay on the ground of limitation. 14. In complaint No:1061/2010 : Complainant produced Xerox copy of premium paid receipt, proposal form, declaration form and R/R of his survey number. Complainant insured paddy crop. In the RTC, it is mentioned as paddy crop only. In the declaration form and proposal form, it is mentioned as paddy. Hence, we rely on the declaration form and proposal form. Hence, his claim is allowed. 15. Complaints No. 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 797, 1062, 1063, 1064 & 1065 of 2010: Complainants produced proposal form & declaration form, Bank seal on proposal form to show that, they have paid the premium towards insured & R/R of their Sy.No. Complainants insured Paddy crop. In the RTC of all the complainants it is mentioned as Paddy. Hence, above mentioned complainants claim is allowed. 16. In complaint No;796 of 2010: Complainant produced declaration form, proposal form, Bank seal on the proposal form to show that, he has paid premium towards insurance & R/R of his Sy.No. Complainant insured Paddy crops for the year 2003-04. In the complainant mentioned the Sy.No. 95. But he had produced proposal form, declaration form, khata extract & R/R for the Sy.No.85. Hence, we dismiss his claim. 17. In complaint No;789 & 1066 of 2010: Complainant produced declaration form, proposal forms, Bank seal on the proposal form to show that, they have paid premium towards insurance & R/R of their Sy.No. Complainants insured Paddy crop. But the RTC is completely blank. They have not produced Village Accountant certificate to show, which crop they have grown. But we rely on declaration form & proposal form as it is mentioned Paddy crop. Hence, claim of the above complaints are allowed. 18. In complaint No:790/2010: Complainant produced declaration form, proposal form, Bank seal on the proposal form to show that, he had paid premium & R/R of his Sy.No. He has insured Paddy crop for his 2 Sy.No. 71/4 & 4p. For Sy.No. 71/4. In the RTC it is mentioned as Paddy crop. Hence, his claim is allowed. For Sy.NO. 4p. He has not produced RTC. Hence, his claim is dismissed regarding that Sy.No. 19. In complaint No:800/2010: Complainant produced declaration form, proposal form, Bank seal on the proposal form to show that, he had paid premium & R/R of his Sy.No. He has insured Paddy crop for his 2 Sy.No. 68/2 & 79. For Sy.No. 68/2. he has not produced the RTC. Hence, his claim is dismissed regarding that Sy.No. For Sy.No. 79. In the RTC it is mentioned as paddy crop. Hence, his claim is allowed. 20. As per order dated:22/1/2009 in appeal No;2328/2008 the Hon’ble K.S.C.D.R.C. Bangalore it has been held that, the declaration issued by the revenue officer regarding the crops grown for the relevant year can be relied upon in case where the RTC extract produced by the complaint discloses the growth of some other crops other than the insured crops. 21. Hence, in this case though the RTC disclose the crops cultivation column completely blank. But the declaration issued by the Revenue Officer shows the insured crops has been grown in the said Sy.No. 22. The Hon’ble K.S.C.D.R.C. Bangalore by it’s order dated:2-2-2009 in appeal No:2362/2008 has held that, the District Forum has to consider other evidence produced by the complainants in the absence of original receipts to show that, the premium has been paid in all these case the complainants has produced Xerox copy of receipts, original premium paid receipts for some of the complainants in proof of payment of premium amount. 23. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No:2393 etc., of (2007) 2008 Dt:22-4-2009 ruled that, these cases of crops insurance should be decided as per the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. That, the Forum should not be guided by the Annevari yield of crops declared by the respective State Government, that, cases should be decided on the basis of short fall in yield arrived at by the respective Forums in the Following formula. “ Short fall in yield = Threshold yield – Actual yield” 24. The OP-2 in the written version in all the cases has though contended about the no shortfall in yield, it failed to substantiate the same. It has failed to establish as to how it arrived at threshold yield, as to when, where, how, how in whose presence etc, the crops cutting experiments were conducted to arrive at the actual yield. The reports to arrive at threshold yield and actual yield are also not placed before us by OP-2. Burden of proof of threshold yield and actual yield is on OP-2. As against the contention of OP-2 the complainants have relied upon the declarations of the State Government for the respective areas as drought hit areas and drought relief schemes were proposed. If we should believe the contentions of OP-2, in it’s written version, without proof there is no reason to reject or disbelieve the statements of the complainants about the drought conditions. This scheme was introduced for the benefits of the poor agriculturists by the insurance company in collaboration with central and State Governments. The agriculturists are the beneficiaries. It is socio beneficial scheme. Hence, if the balance should struck at the centre, we should lien towards the beneficiaries. 25. The learned counsel for complainants further submitted that, the conditions of the crops or actual yield of the crops depends upon the rainfall at appropriate stage, time and the required raingage or rainfall. It was submitted that, if there was short or excess rainfall, it again affects the actual yield. It was further submitted that, for the crops like Maize, Groundnut, Paddy, Cotton, Jawar etc., rainfalls for 3-4 times, at appropriate stage is necessary. There should be required rainfall just before sowing, the third rainfall should be at the appropriate time just before flowering or formation of corns or nuts etc., it was further submitted, that, if there was untimely rainfall after formation of crops, but before harvesting or cutting the crops, it will damage the entire labour of the agriculturists and it brings the income from the land to “ ZERO”. Even if there was good generation of the seeds, development of the plant, flowering and formation of the crops, but if the untimely rainfall should damage the crops them, again there is cent percent failure of crops and cent percent loss to the agriculturists. Both parties should plead and prove all these facts by documents and affidavits. But, we find sterio typed allegations in the complaints and written versions by OP-2 in almost all the cases of crops insurance. Under the circumstances, we are forced to tilt the balance in favour of the beneficiaries, poor agriculturists, in the absence of pleading and proof by OP-2. It has failed to produce any document regarding crops cutting experiments, the affidavits of the concerned persons supported by Panchanama etc., 26. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent AIC, the opponent bank has acted as an agent in between complainants & opponent AIC, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent bank. Thus, claim against opponent No:1 bank is dismissed. Thus, we answered part 1 & 2 partly in the affirmative. Hence, we pass the following: :: O R D E R :: 1. The complaint Nos. 789, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 797, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065 & 1066 of 2010: are hereby allowed. 2. It is directed that, O.P-2 shall pay the sum assured to complainant with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of filing the complaint till realization. No costs and compensation. 3. The Complaints No:790 & 800 of 2010 are hereby partly allowed. In complaint No:790 of 2010, his claim regarding Sy.No. 71/4 is allowed. His claim regarding Sy.No. 4p is dismissed. In complaint No:800 of 2010, his claim regarding Sy.No.79 is allowed. His claim regarding Sy.No. 68/2 is dismissed. 4. The complaint No:796 of 2010 is dismissed. 5. The above complaints against opponent-1 Bank is closed, since they are Nodal Banks. 6. Keep the original order in Complaint No.789/2010 and copy in other connected cases. (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Forum on 8-03-2011) Prakash Ballari, District Judge (R), President. Smt. Amareshwari Moogi Member PHR*
|
|
|