GENERAL MANAGER, GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA vs MER LAKHMAN RAMDE ODEDARA

-THIS appeal arises from order dated 27th May, 2003 rendered by the learned Jamnagar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 374/1994 directing the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2-Bank of India through its different offices, to pay to the complainant compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- for deficiency in service and cost in the Sum of Rs. 1,500/- whereas directing opponent No. 3-Insurance Company (General Insurance Corporation of India) to pay to the complainant Rs. 8,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment.

WE have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the original opponent No. 3- General Insurance Corporation of India, now the appellant, and original opponent No. 1 and 2-Bank of India (through its different offices), now the respondent No. 2. No one is present for the complainant. WE have gone through the impugned order. WE have gone through the memorandum of appeal. The claim before the learned Forum had arisen on account of failure of crop for which crop insurance was taken on behalf of the complainant under the crop insurance scheme of the opponents. It was the defence of the opponent Bank before the learned Forum that there was clerical mistake or oversight on the part of the concerned employee/s of the Bank of India in sending the amount of premium by mistakenly treating the district as Junagadh in place of Jamnagar. That mistake was corrected by entering into correspondence with the opponent No. 3-General Insurance Corporation of India. Learned Forum came to the conclusion that the mistake on the part of the opponent Bank would have amount to deficiency in service and, therefore, it issued the impugned order.

The only submission before us is that as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent No. 3-General Insurance Corporation of India running interest of 9% is to be set aside. Further submission on behalf of the said Corporation is that declaration should have been sent separately for each month of loaning. Consolidated declarations for more than one month or for the entire season must not be sent, whereas in the present case this was violated by the opponent Bank. In our considered opinion since the mistake was admitted by the opponent Bank, opponent No. 3 General Insurance Corporation of India ultimately was bound to indemnify the farmer under the scheme as there is no other defence with regard to failure of crop.

BEARING in mind the facts of the case we propose to set aside the order with regard to running interest finding there was no deficiency on the part of the opponent No. 3-General Insurance Corporation of India. Opponent Bank has not filed any appeal and it could not have any objection in modifying the order accordingly. In fact it has complied with the impugned order which relates to it. Following order is, therefore, passed: Impugned order dated 27th May, 2003 rendered by the learned Jamnagar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 374/1994 is hereby modified by setting aside the provision for running interest @ 9% and maintaining only payment of Rs. 8,500/- by the opponent No. 3 General Insurance Corporation of India to the complainant within eight weeks from today. The said Corporation is stated to have deposited Rs. 4,500/- in this Commission. Office is to verify the said amount and return the same with interest, if any, to the opponent No. 3-General Insurance Corporation of India by A/c. payee cheque. This appeal is accordingly partly allowed with no order as to cost in this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.