Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU
Ravi Shankar, Judicial Member and Sunita C. Bagewadi, Member
Manager, Pragathi Krishna
Gramin Bank – Appellant
versus
Ravindragouda and Ors. – Respondents
Appeal Nos.872/2018 and 873/2018
Decided on 12.7.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Appeal Against order of District Commission – Services – Banking and Insurance – Crop Insurance – PMFBY - Government Scheme – Mistake in data – Entering wrong name of Crop – Liability of Bank - For the mistake in data, Appellant Bank is liable for compensation - Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 and here Appellant Bank is an agent to collect premium amount from Respondent No.1 in both cases and remitted to Respondent No.2. But as an agent, it is also Appellant’s duty to enter correct data of the persons who have taken the crop insurance from Insurance Company within time. Moreover it is not a small mistake and Appellant’s Bank cannot discharge his liability - Appellant Bank tried to rectify their mistake when the Government declared the area where Maize crop was grown as a drought area and Respondent No.1 in both cases claimed for the insurance of his crop under PMFBY and list of eligible farmers and their insurance amount in their website - Moreover insurance company received the amount towards Maize crop but as per the Appellant contention Appellant Bank has admitted that, the mistake was made by him & entered the name of crop was ‘Green Gram’ instead of ‘Maize’. It is clear cut mistake of Appellant Bank - Respondent No.1 in both cases are entitled for the assured insurance amount towards loss of Maize crop not the loss of Green Gram. It is also an admitted by Respondent No.1 in both cases that Respondent No.2 has been deposited the account of Respondent No.1 in both cases Rs.12,958-91 & Rs.13,000-11 towards Green Gram - Respondent No.1 in both cases are entitled sum assured amount towards loss of Maize crop – Appeals dismissed. [Para 12]
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
Sunita C. Bagewadi, Member—The Appellant/OP-1 filed these two appeals being aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2018 passed by Koppal District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.87/2017 & 62/2017 respectively which allowed the complaints filed by the complainants.
2. The brief facts of the case is that, the complainants are the owner of land bearing Sy. No.221/3 & Sy. No.221/1 respectively measuring 08 acres situated at Mandalagiri village of Yalaburga Taluka, Koppal District. Each of the complainants opted for crop insurance for Maize crop in the said land through the OP-Bank vide Application No.919253 & 919268 respectively for the year 2016-17, by paying premium amount of Rs.3015/- & Rs.3024/- respectively. Further the complainants did not get any crop yield due to shortfall of rain and drought during that year. So the complainants are entitled to get the crop insurance amount of Rs.1,50,770/- & Rs.1,57,200/- respectively but the OP paid only Rs.12,958-00 & Rs.13,000-11 respectively. Therefore the complainants enquired about the same with the OP, but the OP negligently replied that the complainants are entitled to that much amount only. Thereafter the complainants approached the OP on 19.06.2017 & 24.04.2017 respectively and given written complaint, but the OP did set right the matter. Therefore on 30.08.2017 the complainants sent legal notice to the OP, for which they replied stating that due to some oversight there was a mistake and the same is intimated to Ballari Head Office and also Regional office, Koppal, they will set right the matter and after getting the insurance amount they will deposit the same to the account of the complainants. But till today they did not deposit the same. Due to this act of the OP, the complainants suffered lot of mental agony. This act of the OP amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore the complainants filed complaints claiming compensation as prayed above.
3. The OP-1 appeared before the Forum through their counsel and filed Vakalatnama and filed an I.A No.1 U/o IX R 7 of CPC to set aside the exparte order and allow them to file their written version. The said IA No.1 was allowed and thereafter the OP no.1 filed their written version. Thereafter the complainant filed an I.A No.2 U/o 1 R10 R/2 sec 151 of CPC for impleading the proposed necessary party i.e., OP No.2 the said I.A No.2 was allowed and OP No.2 was impleaded. OP-2 appeared before the Forum through their counsel and filed Vakalatnama and OP-2 filed written version to the complaint.
4. OP-1 filed version stating that, it is admitted as true that the complainants have remitted the premium insurance amount of Rs.3,015/- & Rs.3,024/- respectively for the crop of maize to the extent of 07 acres 34 guntas in the land Sy.No.221/3 and 07 acres 35 guntas and in the land survey No.221/2 of Mandalageri village through OP Bank respectively. The duty of the OP No.1 is only like a post as the Bank authority has received the amount an application and sent the application and amount to the Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., the OP is like a catalyst. The complaint itself is not tenable in law as the complainants have not made the insurance Co., as party to the proceedings, which the amount has been received to the Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. It is the bounden duty of the Insurance Company to go through the details of the crop and amount paid by the complainants, for which crop the complainants paid the amount otherwise, the said insurance company has to clarify OP PKGB Branch Itagi in this regard. Otherwise the Insurance Co., has to refund the excess amount paid by the complainants as Insurance Co., has paid the amount to the Green Gram crop and the remaining amount is retrained with insurance company. But the Insurance Company has neglected all these facts before payment of Rs.12,958/- & Rs.13,000/- respectively to the complainants under Samrakshane Portal. So the Insurance Company is liable
SupremeToday
Mistake in Data - For the mistake in data, Appellant Bank is liable for compensation.
Mistake in Data - For the mistake in data, Appellant Bank is liable for compensation.
Banks under PMFBY are accountable for accurate reporting of insured details, with liability for misreporting leading to claim denials.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
