State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Agriculture Insurance vs Ram Krishna Verma on 8 March, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2013/2322 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. Agriculture Insurance a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Ram Krishna Verma a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Gobardhan Yadav MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 08 Mar 2017 Final Order / Judgement RESERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No. 2186 of 2013 State Bank of India through Branch Manager, Krishi Vikas Shakha, Moth, District, Jhansi ...Appellant. Versus 1- Ram Krishna Verma s/o Late Raghuver Dayal, R/o Village, Kumharia, Vikas Khand, Chirgaon, Tehsil, Moth, District, Jhansi. 2- Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Regional Office, State Bank of India, Head Office, 7th Floor, Jeewan Phase-II, Naval Kishore Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow through its Regional Manager. ...Respondents. Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Agriculture Insurance Company of India, IInd Floor, Meri Gold, 04- Shahnajaf Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow through Manager. ...Appellant. Versus 1- Ram Krishna Verma s/o Late Shri Raghuver Dayal Verma, R/o Village, Kumharia, Vikas Khand, Chirgaon, Tehsil, Moth, District, Jhansi. 2- State Bank of India, Krishi Vikas Shakha, Moth, District, Jhansi through Manager...Respondents. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Govardhan Yadav, Member. Shri Sharad Dwivedi for the appellant. Shri Diwakar Singh for the respondent no.1 Shri Dinesh Kumar for the respondent no.2 Date 27.3.2017 JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma, Member) Since both the above mentioned appeals arise out of the impugned judgment therefore, they are taken up together for disposal. The appeal no.2186 of 2013 will be the leading case.
(2)Facts giving rise to these appeals, in short, are that the respondent/complainant Shri Ram Krishna Verma filed complaint case in the District Consumer Forum, Jhansi on the ground that he was the resident of Village, Kumharia, Vikas Khand, Chirgaon, Tehsil, Moth, District, Jhansi and had got a Kisan Credit Card through the appellant/OP no.1 of Appeal no.2186 of 2013. The complainant had taken loan of Rs.25,000.00 for his Kharif crop from the appellant/OP no.1 and OP no.1 had got the risk covered by an insurance through OP no.2, appellant of the appeal no.2322 of 2013 for which premium of Rs.625.00 was deducted. In the year 2003, the crop of the complainant got fully damaged because of natural calamity and floods whereby the 81.50% of the loan amount of Rs.25,000.00 i.e. Rs.22,846.75 was to be paid by the OPs to the complainant but they refused. Hence, the complaint.
The appellant/OP no.1 and OP no.2 filed their WS mentioning therein that the complaint was time barred and that the crop of the complainant was not correctly mentioned, hence payment could not be made to him. It was also mentioned by the OP no.2 that the amount of Rs.14,47,791.19 was released by them to OP no.1 for payment. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the ld. Forum below passed the impugned order as under:-
"परिवादी का परिवाद विपक्षीगण के विरूद्व स्वीकार किया जाता है, और विपक्षीगण 1 व 2 संयुक्त रूप से अथवा पृथक-पृथक परिवादी को बीमा क्षतिपूर्ति की धनराशि 22846.75 पैसे दिनांक 2.7.03 से भुगतान की तिथि तक 9% ब्याज सहित अदा करेंगे। विपक्षीगण परिवादी को 5000/- (पांच हजार रूपये) मानसिक कष्ट के रूप में तथा 2000/- रू0 (दो हजार रूपये) वाद व्यय के रूप में भी अदा करेंगे। उपरोक्त धनराशि का भुगतान निर्णय की तिथि से दो माह के अन्दर विपक्षीगण परिवादी को अदा करेंगे।"(3)
Feeling aggrieved with this order, the appellants have filed the above mentioned appeals.
The main grounds of the appeal no.2186 of 2013 are that the statement of claim submitted does not correctly show the village of the complainant as the crop of the Block Chairgaon was affected by the natural calamity whereas the address of Moth was given and as the Block Moth was not within the affected area therefore, payment could not be made to the complainant. Besides, the respondent no.2 the Agriculture Insurance Company of India had not paid the insurance though it was under the obligation to make such payment. Another ground taken is that the complaint has been filed after 8 years and therefore, it was highly time barred and not maintainable. Therefore, the impugned order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
The grounds of the appeal no.2322 of 2013, in short, are that the ld. Forum has erred in passing the impugned order against the appellant ignoring the basic provisions of the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme of the Government of India adopted by Government of U.P. Besides, the ld. Forum has erred in finding the appellant Insurance Company liable though it was the fault of the Bank for which the complainant suffered. The appellant had paid Rs.14,47,791.19 to the respondent no.2 State Bank of India and out of that amount Rs.9,68,683.23 was for Chirgaon Block. The Bank had not paid the insured amount in time and therefore, there was not liability of the appellant. Hence, the Forum below erred in holding the appellant also liable for the same.
(4)Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
First of all the issue as to whether the complaint was time barred as per the contention of the appellant or not, is to be dealt with. In this regard, it is to be seen that the case pertains to Kharif crop 2003 and the correspondence regarding non-payment of the claim kept on till 2005 but the complaint case was filed only in the year 2011 and therefore, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that the complaint was time barred as it was filed after the lapse of more than 2 years from arising of the cause of action in 2005 at the most. It is argued by the ld. counsel for the respondent/complainant that since the matter was being continuously raised by the parties including the State Bank which had been raising the issues with the Insurance Company and that the amount of compensation was not settled therefore, the cause of action was a continuing one when the case was filed in 2013. In this regard, it is important to note the contention of the appellant Agricultural Insurance Company in their WS filed in the Forum below wherein para 11 it is mentioned that they had communicated to the Nodal Bank State Bank of India, Sadar Bazar, Jhansi vide letter dated 19.12.2011 to verify as to whether the petitioner had availed crop loan and that the Bank had vide letter dated 28.12.201 informed them that the petitioner was insured for Urad crop during Kharif 2003 by debiting premium of Rs.625.00 from his account. So negotiation between the appellants themselves show that the matter was being negotiated between the (5) parties with regard to the payment of the insurance premium as well as the payment of the amount to the claimant/ complainant. Therefore, it is ample proof of the fact that the cause of action continued till 28.12.2011 and therefore, this complaint case was filed within 2 years of the letter dated 28.12.2011 and therefore, it can not be said to be time barred.
Now we come to the main issue. In these cases, it is not disputed that the respondent/ complainant no.1 was having a Kisan Credit Card issued by the appellant/OP no.1 and that he had taken loan of Rs.25,000.00 for his Kharif crop and that the Kharif crop was insured by the appellant/OP no.1 with the OP No.2 after deduction of Rs.625.00 as premium of the purpose. The disputed point according to the appellants are that the appellant/OP no.1 had no concern for making payment of the insured amount as it was the respondent no.2/OP no.2 who was to make payment of the insurance claim. With regard to the appeal no.2322 of 2013, the disputed point according to the appellant is that it is because of the default of the respondent no.2/OP no.2 that the complainant was not paid the insured amount as the amount was paid by the Insurance Company to the appellant State Bank of India for the Chirgaon Block and if the insured amount was not paid to the complainant then it was the fault of the State Bank of India and not the fault of the appellant. Therefore, the order passed by the ld. Forum against the appellant is liable to be set aside.
From the records, it transpires that the respondent no.1/complainant had taken Kisan Credit Card from the (6) State Bank of India who had got the Kharif crop of the complainant insured with the OP no.2 Agriculture Insurance Company of India. Since the crop of the complainant was damaged as entire block of Chirgaon was declared as "अतिवृष्टि ब्लाक" and as the complainant Ram Krishna Verma's agricultural land was within the Chirgaon Block therefore, he was well covered under the "Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojna" as is evident from the letter written by the District Magistrate, Jhansi to the State Bank of India in February, 2005, a copy of which is on record. From this letter, it is clear that the complainant had taken loan of Rs.25,000.00 from the State Bank concerned and that it was insured on 14.11.2003 by deducting a sum of Rs.625.00 as premium and as the Kharif crop was damaged and the compensation has been received thereof, hence the wrong address of Moth given by the State Bank should be corrected and accordingly the proposal be sent to the District Magistrate. In this connection the letter written by the Dy. G.M. of the State Bank of India, a copy of which is on record, clearly shows that the complainant was entitled for compensation as his land was within the Chirgaon Block and not in the Moth Block and therefore, as the Chirgaon Block was eligible for compensation therefore, the claim of the complainant Shri Ram Krishna Verma be settled. There are a few letters written by the State Bank to the Complainant that for the disposal of his claim, the matter is being raised with the Insurance Company but we find that the Insurance Company in its written statement filed in the District Forum had taken the (7) stand that the Insurance Company has already paid Rs.14,47,791.19 to the State Bank concerned with regard to Kharif 2003 crop's claims for all eligible crops and blocks covered by the Bank out of which Rs.9,68,683.23 was for the Urad crop of Chirgaon Block covered by the Bank. So it is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that there is no deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company if the amount was not paid by the Bank despite the Insurance Company remitting the entire amount to the Bank for the eligible claims.
It transpires that as there was some confusion about the address of the complainant and the fact that the Moth Block was not eligible for compensation and only Chirgaon Block was for eligible claims therefore, the complainant was not paid ostensibly because the complainant's address was not correctly written by the Bank. So despite the fact that the complainant had paid the Insurance premium and the fact that the Insurance Company had remitted the amount as per the eligible claims, the amount due to the complainant was not credited in his account. So obviously, the fault lies with the State Bank and its letter dated 1.6.2005 clearly shows that the amount could not be paid to the complainant because of confusion about his address but then it is a fault of the State Bank as because of the incorrect information that the amount could not be paid to the complainant. It is to be noted that in their WS, the Insurance Company has made mention of the fact that the Nodal Bank vide their letter dated 28.12.2011 had informed them that the (8) petitioner was insured for Urad crop during Kharif 2003 by debiting the premium of Rs.625.00 from his account. So, it is clear that even though the premium was paid and the amount of compensation was remitted by the Insurance Company still the complainant could not be paid because of the fault of the State Bank concerned. It is argued by the ld. counsel for the State Bank that as they had informed the Insurance Company about the payment of the premium paid by the complainant, it was the responsibility of the Insurance Company to make payment but the ld. counsel for the Insurance Company argued that they had already remitted the entire compensation amount as mentioned above, to the Bank for eligible claims land therefore, if the complainant was not paid by the Bank that it is the responsibility of the Bank to make the payment and not the Insurance Company.
Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company drew our attention to the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme and Special Clause 5 contained in the Scheme as under:-
"In case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the Scheme due to errors/ omissions/ commissions of the Nodal Bank/ Branch/ PACS, the concerned institutions only shall mark good all such losses."
He has also drawn our attention to the General Condition no.19 which is as under:-
"Whenever, any clarification in respect of Declarations submitted by Fls is sought by AIC same must be submitted within two weeks. Thereafter, AIUC is not under obligation to accept the same, including reopening of claims. Declarations received after the prescribed cut-off dates will be rejected and the responsibility liability' (9) for such proposals rests with the nodalbanks/Fls. The Fls shall only be liable/responsible for all omissions/ commissions errors committed by them."
He has also cited the case decided on 30th October, 2015 by the Hon'ble NCDRC in Revision Petition no.2673 of 2013 and other revision petitions, wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC has held that "In such circumstances, there was relationship of consumer and service providers between the complainant and OP no.1. As far liability of OP no.1 is concerned, as per clause 5 of "special conditions for FL's/Nodal Banks/Loan Disbursing Points", if a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/ omissions/commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branch, the concerned institutions should make good all such losses. As per clause 19 of guidelines to Financial Institutions, the Financial Institutions were to be only responsible for all omissions/commissions/errors committed by them. When prima facie, error has been committed by the petitioner in remitting amount of premium recovered from the complainants while sending it to the OP no.3 in wrong name of village of complainants, OP no.1 & 2 were liable to reimburse all the losses. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing complaints against OP np.1 & 2."
On the basis of the finding of the Hon'ble NCDRC, it is clear that the State Bank who had committed error in providing incorrect address of the complainant whereby the complainant was not given compensation, it is the State Bank which is responsible for not making the (10) payment and therefore, they have committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the appeal filed by the State Bank of India is liable to be dismissed whereas the appeal filed by the Agricultural Insurance Company succeeds. The impugned order is accordingly to be amended.
ORDER The appeal no.2186 of 2013 is dismissed and the Appeal no.2322 of 2013 is allowed. The impugned order is amended to the extent that the OP no.2 of the complaint is absolved of its liability and only OP no.1 shall make compliance of the order dated 27.8.2013 passed by the Forum below.
Appeal no.2186 of 2013 is treated as a leading case and the original judgment be kept on the records of the same and its certified copy be placed in the records of Appeal no.2322 of 2013.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(Vijai Varma) (Govardhan Yadav) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA II Court No.3 [HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Gobardhan Yadav] MEMBER