ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. IRAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition No. 783 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 20.11.2007, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (short, "State Commission") in First Appeal No.1552 of 2006.

(2.) The facts of the present case as per complaint are that the complainants/respondents are the owners of the agricultural lands bearing Sy. Nos.594/2 and 594/1 respectively situated at Mannur village in Afazalpur Taluka. The respondent no.1 is the mother and respondent no.2 is the son. The said lands being very fertile are suitable for growing advanced crops. Hence, respondents with the active assistance of daughter by name Meenaxi A.Agharkhed thought of growing advanced crops especially the Tissue Culture Banana, since the lands are very much suitable for the said crop. In this respect soil and water source reports were obtained from the competent authorities.

(3.) During 2000-01, respondents have successfully raised/grown Tissue Culture Banana (TCB) for the first time in the said lands. This Tissue Culture Banana being an advanced variety requires huge investment for purchasing plants, fertilizers and other aid materials and for preparatory of the land to suit the same for the crop. Apart from this, the cost of growing/maintaining of the crop is also very high and hence, respondents have taken required financial assistance from the State Bank of India, Mannur branch by hypothecating the crops as well as by furnishing land security by both the respondents and of Meenaxi A.Agharkhed. Before/while advancing the loan, the said banker had meticulously verified/investigated all the records. Later the said banker had duly visited and investigated the lands, preparations/facilities, assured the viability of the growth of the said crop with the technical assistance from experts. It is only on the entire satisfaction of the banker, the banker had approved the proposal for assistance and had assisted the respondents. As per the financial assistance norms, the banker on its own as a mandatory obligation ought to have insured the hypothecated crop, but in his case has failed to do so for the reasons best known to it. As per the Govt.'s scheme of finance, this mandatory provision shall have to be complied with by the banker. It is also a norm suggested by technical committee that the premium required for insuring crop should be sanctioned to the loanee in addition to the crop loan.