State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Syndicate Bank Nizamabad Dist vs P.Ranga Reddy And Another Nizamabad on 3 March, 2009
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.557/2006 and CD.No.4/2003 District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad. Between: M/s.Syndicate Bank, Banswada Branch, Nizamabad Dist. 503 187 Rep. by its Manager Sri N.Viswanadham. Appellant/O.P.No.1. And 1.P.Ranga Reddy, S/o.Ganga Reddy, Age: 54 yrs. R/o.Damaranch Village, Birkur Mandal, Nizamabad Dist. R.1/Complainant. 2.The Officer-in-charge, The General Insurance Corporation of India, 8th Floor, United India Towers, 3-5-817, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. R.2/O.P. No.2. FA.No.558/2006 and CD.No.5/2003 District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad. Between: M/s.Syndicate Bank, Banswada Branch, Nizamabad Dist. 503 187 Rep. by its Manager Sri N.Viswanadham. Appellant/O.P.No.1. And 1.P.Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o.Parva Reddy, Age: 28 yrs. R/o.Damaranch Village, Birkur Mandal, Nizamabad Dist. R.1/Complainant. 2.The Officer-in-charge, The General Insurance Corporation of India, 8th Floor, United India Towers, 3-5-817, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. R.2/O.P. No.2. FA.No.559/2006 and CD.No.6/2003 District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad. Between: M/s.Syndicate Bank, Banswada Branch, Nizamabad Dist. 503 187 Rep. by its Manager Sri N.Viswanadham. Appellant/O.P.No.1. And 1.Sangireddy Bheem Reddy S/o.Vittal Reddy, Age: 40 yrs. R/o.Namli Village, Birkur Mandal, Nizamabad Dist. R.1/Complainant. 2.The Officer-in-charge, The General Insurance Corporation of India, 8th Floor, United India Towers, 3-5-817, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. R.2/O.P. No.2. FA.No.560/2006 and CD.No.7/2003 District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad. Between: M/s.Syndicate Bank, Banswada Branch, Nizamabad Dist. 503 187 Rep. by its Manager Sri N.Viswanadham. Appellant/O.P.No.1. And 1.Sangireddy Saya Reddy, S/o.Vittal Reddy, Age: 32 yrs. R/o.Namili Village, Birkur Mandal, Nizamabad Dist. R.1/Complainant. 2.The Officer-in-charge, The General Insurance Corporation of India, 8th Floor, United India Towers, 3-5-817, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. R.2/O.P. No.2. FA.No.561/2006 and CD.No.8/2003 District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad. Between: M/s.Syndicate Bank, Banswada Branch, Nizamabad Dist. 503 187 Rep. by its Manager Sri N.Viswanadham. Appellant/O.P.No.1. And 1.Patlolla Ram Reddy, S/o.Kista Reddy, Age: 50 yrs. R/o. Namli Village, Birkur Mandal, Nizamabad Dist. R.1/Complainant. 2.The Officer-in-charge, The General Insurance Corporation of India, 8th Floor, United India Towers, 3-5-817, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. R.2/O.P. No.2. FA.No.562/2006 and CD.No.9/2003 District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad. Between: M/s.Syndicate Bank, Banswada Branch, Nizamabad Dist. 503 187 Rep. by its Manager Sri N.Viswanadham. Appellant/O.P.No.1. And 1.Bobbili Ganga Ram, S/o.Ramaiah, Age: 35 yrs. R/o.Namli Village, Birkur Mandal, Nizamabad Dist. R.1/Complainant. 2.The Officer-in-charge, The General Insurance Corporation of India, 8th Floor, United India Towers, 3-5-817, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. R.2/O.P. No.2. Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.M.V.Ramana. Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.G.Madhava Rao. QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HONBLE PRESIDENT, AND SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HONBLE MALE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Common Oral Order (Per Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President) *******
1. Though separate and independent orders are passed in all these cases, they are clubbed for passing a common order in view of the fact that all these cases relate to compensation claimed against the appellant Bank for deficiency in the service.
2. The parties are described as arrayed in the complaints for facility of expression.
3. The complainants are all agriculturalists.
They are residents of Damarancha and Namli village of Birkur Mandal. During Khareef season 2001, they obtained crop loan from the appellant Bank and raised N-10 variety paddy insured with the 2nd respondent by paying premium. While so, they sustained loss of crop due to drought. The Government has announced compensation wherein the Insurance Company had to indemnify the loss to the extent of percentage to which the loan was extended. The amount so realized was to be adjusted to the loan of the farmer under the crop insurance scheme. While so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh announced loss of crop in Birkur Mandal for Khareef season 2001 at 76.6086% and to Bansawada Mandal at 15.36%. However, the Bank instead of giving relief to them as per the loss given to Birkur Mandal, due to oversight, had indemnified loss at 15.36% which was declared for Banswada Mandal, thereby the amount was not adjusted as per the relief granted by the Government. Thereby, they sustained loss. Therefore, the complainants claimed the amount together with interest at 24% per annum and costs.
4. The Bank filed counter resisting the case.
While admitting the granting of crop loan for raising paddy crop and the payment of insurance premium for the loss of crop, it stated that it was only a loan giving agency and as per the conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company had to pay the insurance amount towards percentage of crop loan. It (the Bank) had no knowledge about the declaration of percentage of crop loan in Khareef season 2001 by the Government. They ought to have complained to the Insurance Company for the short payment of insurance amount by the Bank. They had filed the complaints hastily. They could not be blamed for deficiency in service.
5. The Insurance Company filed counter admitting that they have extended the Insurance Policy in respect of crop loan to the agriculturists. It also admitted that it deducted premium towards insurance of crop loss. It admitted that the complainants were eligible for crop loss at 76.60% in respect of Birkur Mandal and not 15.36% which was announced for Banswada Mandal and was done mistakenly by the Bank. It had not committed any deficiency on its part. In case a farmer was deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors committed by the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACS, the concerned institution should alone make good of all such losses. Since it was the Bank that had committed mistake, it prayed that the complaints against it be dismissed.
6. The complainants in proof of their case filed their affidavit evidence and got Exs.A.1 to A.3 marked. The Bank filed its counter affidavit, while the Insurance Company filed its counter affidavit and got Exs.B.1 to B.5 marked.
7. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that admittedly the Bank committed mistake and deprived the benefit to the agriculturists thinking that the lands are situated in Banswada Mandal instead of Birkur Mandal, and therefore allowed the complaints directing the Bank to pay the balance amount together with interest, compensation, and cots. The complaint against the Insurance Company was dismissed without costs.
8, Aggrieved by the said decision, the Bank preferred these appeals contending that the complainants had approached the District Forum by concealing the fact that they had availed loan for the same crop from Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Damarancha and received compensation from the Insurance Company. Since it was not in their knowledge they could not canvas the same before the District Forum. Therefore, they prayed that the appeals be allowed.
9. The Bank filed letter dt.25.04.2006 issued by the Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Damarancha village mentioning the above said fact.
10. At the outset, it may be stated that there is no dispute that the complainants, who are agriculturists had obtained crop loan from the Bank, which was insured with the Insurance Company. It was also not in dispute that that the lands of the complainants are situated in Birkur Mandal where the Government has announced the benefit for crop loss at 76.60%, while for the lands situated at Banswada Mandal at 15.36%. It is also not in dispute that the Bank, the appellant herein, has mistakenly directed the Insurance Company to give benefit to the complainants considering that the lands are situated at Banswada Mandal. As such the benefit that was given to the farmers was only 15.36% of crop loss. In fact they were entitled at 76.60%. This mistake was admitted by the Bank. Because of this mistake the complainants could not get the benefit. The District Forum has rightly awarded this amount. This is a patent mistake. It cannot but be described as deficiency in service.
However, the Forum did not grant any interest. In fact only nominal compensation of Rs.4,000/- was awarded besides costs of Rs.1,000/-. We do not see any mistake in this regard.
11. The only contention that was taken by the Bank in these appeals is, that after disposal of complaints, it came to learn that the complainants had also taken loan from the PACS for the same crop and this fact was suppressed. Assuming the fact to be true, there is no proof that such a benefit was given by them.
It is not known as to why the Bank did not take any action when it came to know about the loan that was taken by the complainants from the PACS. Since this issue was not raised earlier and there was no evidence adduced in this regard. It is too late to take such contention. If really, the Bank thinks that this plea would enable them to get over their liability, they can independently take action as well. It has nothing to do with this liability. In view of the fact that such contention was not taken by the Bank earlier resisting the complaints, we do not see any reason to go into the fact as to the amount borrowed by the complainants from PACS and the benefits deprived by them. The said fact was not an issue in the complaints. We do not see any merits in these appeals.
12. In the results, the appeals are dismissed.
However, no costs.
PRESIDENT(DAR) MALE MEMBER(SA) Dt:03.03.2009.