AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All these Revision Petitions arise out of two separate identical orders of learned State Commission involving similar facts and law; hence, decided by common order.
These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against separate orders dated 25.4.2013 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal Nos. 761 to 810 of 2012 & F.A. No. 811 of 2012 to 830 of 2012 by which, while allowing appeals, order of District Forum dismissing complaints was set aside.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.1 is an agriculturist having agricultural land in Maddulapaya village of Thondur Mandal and insured his groundnut crop for the year 2009 under the Khariff season and paid the total insurance premium to opposite party no.1 bank/petitioner as he had an SB account in the same bank. The complainants were sanctioned loan by opposite party No.1 bank and 112 farmers of Maddulapaya village had taken the crop loan and paid the total insurance amount but only 4 farmers were sanctioned the insurance claim for the year 2009 under the Khariff season for the loss of groundnut crop. The complainants approached opposite party no.1/Petitioner No. 1 several times requesting for sanction of insurance claim at 98.66%. A letter was also sent to the third opposite party, which is the insurance company herein but there was no response. A legal notice was issued to opposite parties 1 and 2 demanding insurance claim for the year 2009 at 98.66% and received a reply notice dt.08-7-2011 from opposite party no.1 bank admitting that while submitting crop loan statement for the Khariff year 2009, they have mentioned the village name as ''Ahobilam'' instead of ''Maddulapaya'' village and therefore a mistake occurred while feeding the data in the computer. Opposite party no.1 sought one month''s time to get clearance from the higher officials to correct this mistake but thereafter did not receive any response in settlement of the claim. OP No. 3 being insurer was bound to make payment as claimed. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed separate complaints before District forum.
OP No. 1 resisted complaints and submitted that complainants resident of Maddulapaya village were sanctioned a crop loan and collected an insurance premium insuring groundnut crop to be raised after debiting loan account. This opposite party collected the premiums from all eligible farmers to whom crop loans were arranged during the Khariff season of 2009 and sent the same in turn to its Regional Office at Kadapa under three separate declarations No.191, 249 and 217 for June, July, and August, 2009 in a consolidated format containing the particulars of crop loan borrowers and the loan amounts that were sanctioned along with particulars of nature of land for onward transmission to opposite party No.3/Respondent No. 3, Agricultural Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad. Opposite party No.3 did not release the insurance amount to these complainants. The same was brought to the notice of the Regional Manager of the respondent bank, who addressed a letter dated 08-1-2011 to the Regional Manager of opposite party No.3 requesting him to settle the crop insurance claim. As per revenue records, the village name is ''Maddulapaya'' whereas the villagers used to call this village as ''Ahobilam'', therefore while entering the data into the computer, the village name was fed as ''Ahobilam'' for the months of June, July and August, 2009. In the system, the village name was picked up as ''Ahobilapuram'' which is in the service area of Pulivendula Mandal and not within the service area of this opposite party branch. Opposite party No.1 bank further submitted that on 15-2-2011 the General Manager addressed one more letter to opposite party No.3 referring earlier letter dated 08-1-2011 with respect to pending claims but there was no response from opposite party no.3. The District Collector had clearly mentioned that the village ''Maddulapaya'' has another name as ''Ahobilam'' and therefore recommended the release of crop insurance amount. Opposite party No.1 bank received a legal notice from the complainant and sent a reply on 08-7-2011 stating that the bank authorities are in touch with opposite party no.3, insurance company, and requested that the complainant gives them one month''s time to settle the matter. Denying any deficiency on their part prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 3 resisted complaint and submitted that opposite party receives only consolidated declarations from the designated Nodal Banks and no individual farmer details are provided to this opposite party. The loan disbursing branches while disbursing the crop loans have to debit the insurance premiums from the farmers account and submit the details crop wise, month wise and notified area wise to this opposite party. Likewise opposite party no.2 submitted three declarations pertaining to Ahobilapuram village of Pulivendula Mandal for groundnut Un-irrigated crop and 3 declarations for Maddulapaya Village of Simhadripuram Mandal in respect of Un-irrigated groundnut crop. Opposite party no.3 submitted that in their reply letter 25-4-2011 they have clearly stated that the claims were worked out and settled on the basis of declarations received from the second opposite party and it is the bank which has to verify all the details and the details submitted by them will be treated as correct and final if no communication is received by the opposite party within 10 days. Opposite party no.1 have admitted the mistake of feeding a wrong village name ''Ahobilam'' instead of ''Maddulapaya''. It was further submitted that during Kharif 2009 for groundnut (unirrigated) crop, for Ahobilapuram notified village of Pulivendula mandal, as per claims settlement process no claims were payable and for Maddulapaya notified village of Simhadripuram mandal, the claims were settled at the rate of 98.66%. Accordingly this opposite party had settled the claims at the rate of 98.66% to Maddulapaya village for the three declarations received from Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kadapa (opposite party No.2). Denying any deficiency on their part prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaints. Complainant filed appeals before learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned orders allowed appeals and directed OP NO. 1 & 2 to pay sum insured with 9% p.a. interest along with cost of Rs.3,000/- and dismissed compliant against OP No. 3 against which these revision petitions have been filed along with application for condonation of delay in all revision petitions except R.P No. 2673 of 2013 and R.P. No. 2695 of 2013.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as main appeal was filed in time, application for condonation of delay in filing other revision petitions be condoned. On the other hand, leaned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as no reasonable explanation has been given for condonation of delay, application be dismissed.
In application for condonation of delay it was pleaded that after obtaining copy of the judgment and taking opinion, petitioner decided to file revision petition. It was further submitted that main revision petition was already filed, so, delay in filing revision petitions may be condoned. No doubt, R.P. No. 2673 of 2013 and R.P. No. 2695 of 2013 were filed in time, but they cannot be said to be main revision petitions because each complainant filed separate complaint and appeal before learned State Commission and only because learned State Commission decided appeals by two separate orders, it cannot be inferred that R.P. No. 2673 of 2013 and R.P. No. 2695 of 2013 are main revision petitions for all appeals. Each revision petition is main revision petition pertaining to complaint and appeal and only on the basis of two revision petitions in time delay in filing other revision petitions cannot be condoned. No reason has been given for condonation of delay in application for condonation of delay. Perusal of record reveals that there is delay of 205 days in filing R.P. No. 1226 of 2014 to 1230 of 2014, delay of 210 days in filing R.P. No. 1287 of 2014 to 1289 of 2014 and delay of 268 days in filing R.P. No. 1947 of 2014 to 1968 of 2014 delay of 274 days in filing R.P. No. 2032 to 2046 of 2014 and delay of 547 to 595 days in R.P. No. 615 of 2015 to 623 of 2015, 642 of 2015 to 645 of 2015, 660 to 661 of 2015 and 677 of 2015 to 678 of 2015. As there is no explanation at all for condoning inordinate delay ranging from 205 to 595 days, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed in the light of following judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court -
In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed: "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition."
In Ram Lal and Ors . Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd ., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; "It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."
Hon''ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd . Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under; "We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time."
Hon''ble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr . has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments.
Hon''ble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) - Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority observed as under: "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras".
In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay in all the revision petitions are dismissed and all revision petitions except R.P. No. 2673 of 2013 and R.P. No. 2695 of 2013 are liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as insurance premium was remitted by petitioner to the OP No. 3 depicting name of village ''Ahobilam'' as called by villagers, petitioner has not committed any deficiency and complaint even being barred by limitation, learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeals; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
As far complaints being barred by limitation is concerned, complainants availed loan from June, 2009 to August, 2009 for the crop of Kharif season which ended by 30 th September, 2009 and complaints were filed on 3.11.2011. Complaints are not barred by limitation in the light of letter dated 8.1.2011 and 10.10.2011 written by petitioner to OP No. 3 for release of insurance amount. Petitioner has nowhere repudiated claim but by aforesaid letters requested OP No. 3 to release payment and in such circumstances, cause of action continues till repudiation of claim and complaints filed on 3.3.2011 are well within time.
As far merits of the cases are concerned, it is not disputed that complainants borrowed loan on crop from OP No. 1 and OP No. 1 after deducing insurance amount remitted amount to OP No. 3 showing name of complainant''s village name as ''Ahobilam'' instead of ''Maddulapaya''.
Now, the core question to be decided is whether OP No. 1 & 2 are liable for deficiency in service.
Perusal of scheme floated by OP No. 3 reflects that petitioner was to receive service charge @ 2.5% on premium collected by it from complainants. In such circumstances, there was relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and OP No. 1. As far liability of OP No. 1 is concerned, as per clause 5 of "special conditions for FI''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 petitioner in remitting amount of premium recovered from complainants while sending it to 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 No. 1 & 2.
As far liability of OP No. 3 is concerned, learned State Commission has dismissed complaint against OP No. 3 and complainants have not preferred any revision petition against impugned order. In such circumstances, no observation can be made regarding liability of OP No. 3 towards complainant. Learned State Commission has already observed rightly that petitioner is free to recover money from the Insurance Corporation if so advised.
Learned State Commission directed OP No. 1 & 2 to pay sum assured as stated in the table, but it is made clear that OPs are to pay 98.66% as per insurance coverage.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders and revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, revision petition No. 2673 of 2013 and R.P. No. 2695 of 2013 are dismissed on merits and other revision petitions are dismissed on merits as well being barred by limitation. No costs.