State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Salikram Chandravanshi & Anr., vs Branch Manager, State Bank Of India & ... on 12 March, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Appeal No.FA/12/172
Instituted on 07.04.12
1.Salikram Chandravanshi, S/o: Shri Ramdayal Chandravanshi,
2. Ajay Kumar Chandravanshi, S/o: Shri Salikram Chandravanshi, Both R/o: Village - Doujari, Po. Ramhepur, Tah. Kawardha, Dist. KABIRDHAM (C.G.) ... Appellants.
Vs.
1. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Kawardha, Darripara, Kawardha, Dist. KABIRDHAM (C.G.)
2. Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Co. of India, Regional Office, Jeevan Beema Marg, Pandri, Raipur Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Respondents.
PRESENT: ‐ HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: ‐ Shri R.K.Bhawnani, for appellants.
Shri Sudhir Pandey, for respondent no.1.
Shri P.K.Paul, for respondent no.2.
ORDER Dated: 12/03/2013 PER: ‐ HON'BLE SMT.VEENA MISRA, MEMBER The appeal in hand has been preferred by dissatisfied consumers against order dated 03.02.2012 in complaint case no.14/2011 passed by District Forum Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham (hereinafter referred to District Forum for short) whereby // {PAGE } // the complaint was only partly allowed and OP no.1 was directed to pay Rs.33,048.60 to the complainant within 2 months of the date of order towards compensation for loss of crop with interest @6 % per annum from the date of complaint and in case of default within the stipulated period, interest @9% would be payable from the date of order.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainants are father and son having un‐irrigated agricultural lands in their respective names and had jointly obtained Kisan Credit Card for obtaining loan for agricultural purpose. Credit limit was Rs.2,50,000/‐ (Two Lac Fifty Thousand) and his account no. was 30865126856. The account was operated by complainant no.1. The complainants had obtained loan of Rs.2,40,000/‐ from OP no.1 on 22.08.2009 under the Kisan Credit Card for Kharif crop for agriculture year 2009‐2010. Central Government's National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, 2009‐2010 was applicable in Chhatisgarh State also and under provisions of the scheme on obtaining agriculture loan the farmer was compulsorily covered under the scheme. In case of loss to his crop OP no.2 was supposed to make payment compensation through financial institution as per provisions of aforesaid scheme. It was averred in the // {PAGE } // complaint that OP no.1 was under obligation to forward premium to OP no.2. Complainants' agriculture land is at village Singhanpuri and at village Dojari in Kawardha block and Kawardha was declared by the State government to have suffered drought in the year 2009‐2010. Crop had very badly suffered even then no compensation was paid even after legal notice hence complaint was filed with allegations of deficiency in service against the OPs seeking direction of payment of Rs.2,40,000/‐ towards compensation for loss of crop, Rs.10,000/‐ towards mental harassment and Rs.10,000/‐ towards compensation for other losses suffered by the complainants with interest @12% from August, 2010 and Rs.2,000/‐ towards cost of proceedings.
3. The OP no.1 admitted that the complainant had obtained loan and was eligible for having compulsory insurance cover under the scheme and further admitted that due to omission on its part, premium could not be collected and forwarded to the insurer hence the bank was liable. It was averred in written version that as per appraisal the complainant had obtained loan of Rs.78,000/‐ towards paddy and premium @2.5% of the said amount was to be collected. As per calculation as provided under the scheme the amount to be paid on the loan of Rs.78,000/‐ was Rs.34,998.60 and after deducting // {PAGE } // premium amount of Rs.1,950/‐ the Bank was prepared to pay Rs.33,048.60 to the complainants. It was averred that rest of loan was obtained under other heads which were not covered under the scheme hence it was prayed that the complaint may be decided accordingly.
4. OP no.2 resisted the complaint on the ground that they have no liability as admittedly no premium was forwarded to them.
5. On the basis of material before it the District Forum accepted the version of the OPs and directed Op no.1 to pay the amount of compensation as admitted by it.
6. During pendency of appeal before us, the respondent No.1 Bank had filed an application under O.41, Rule 27 CPC for taking documents on record as additional evidence. Arguments on the application heard. The documents sought to be produced as evidence appear to be relevant and important for proper disposal of this appeal hence the application is allowed and the documents are taken on record.
7. Final argument of all parties also heard, record perused.
// {PAGE } //
8. Learned counsel for complainants / appellants submitted that there was sufficient material on record to show that the complainant was entitled to get an award for entire amount of Rs.2,40,000/‐ but the District Forum has committed a mistake by only partly allowing the claim. Learned counsel submitted that the complainants had obtained loan of Rs. 2,40,000/‐ on 22.08.2009 i.e. during the period between 1st April to 30th September for Kharif crop and suffered total loss of crop, hence they were entitled to get compensated for the entire amount. He further submitted that the District Forum has wrongly relied on the appraisal so the order requires modification and prayed for doing the same.
9. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 Bank submitted that as the Bank had mistakenly failed to collect premium for crop insurance from the complainant, before the District Forum itself the Bank had very frankly admitted its liability on the basis of applicable formula provided under the scheme. As is apparent from the appraisal placed on record of District Forum that out of the sum of Rs.2,40,000/‐ the complainants had obtained loan of only Rs.78,000/‐ towards the crop of paddy. Remaining amount was obtained under other heads which // {PAGE } // were not covered in the facts of the case. Learned counsel submitted that the order is proper in the facts of the case so he prayed for dismissing the appeal.
10. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 also supported the impugned order as the insurer had not received the premium.
11. From the Appraisal placed on record by the Bank it is evident that the complainants had taken only Rs.78,000/‐ towards Kharif Paddy to be sown in Jun‐July and harvesting period was in Nov. Dec. Remaining amount was towards gram, wheat and vegetables to be sown in Nov.‐Dec. and harvesting period was March‐April. The complainant has not at all challenged this Appraisal. In the circumstances the order passed by District Forum appears to be proper as all the aspects have been taken into consideration. Realizing its fault in not collecting and forwarding the premium, the Bank itself had offered to pay compensation to the complainant calculated as per the formula provided under the scheme. District Forum, taking into consideration all the available material directed the Bank to pay, within 2 months, Rs.33,048.60 to the complainant with interest @6% p.a. from the date of complaint and in case of default of payment // {PAGE } // within the stipulated period, payment of interest @9% p.a. from the date of order was directed. We find the order to be reasonable hence the order of the District Forum is hereby affirmed. The appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/03/2013 /03/2013 /03/2013