Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/61/2017

Prasant Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

1- state of Odisha Represented through District Magistrate-cum-collector - Opp.Party(s)

B.Pradhan & A.K.Sahu

27 Jul 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer.Case No.- 61/2017

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

Prasanta Kumar Sharma,

S/O- Daitari Charan Sharma

R/O-Jamankira, Po/PS-Jamankira,

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.                                                                  …..Complainant

 

Vrs.

1. State of Odisha

Represented through District Magistrate-Cum-Collector,

Sambalpur, PO/Dist-Sambalpur.

2. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank

Badrama Branch, PO/Ps-Jamankira,

Dist-Sambalpur.

3. Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.

191 Unit III Exhibition Ground, Kharabela Nagar

Bhubaneswar-751001                                                    ….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :-         Sri. B.Pradhan, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P 1 & 2             :-        None
3. For the O.P 3                   :-          Sri B.K.Purohit, Advocate & Associates.

 

DATE OF HEARING :04.07.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 27.07.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has been financed with agricultural loan from Punjab National Bank, Badrama Branch vide Loan A/C No. 2699008800000435 INR 269800, which was to be paid on installment basis. In every year the Complainant used to avail crop loan to a tune of Rs, 48,000/- for loan in Kharif season and as per norms under National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, the O.P No. 2 used to deducted the compulsory  premium amount from out of the cash credit limit of Rs. 50,000/-. The Complainant had also availed Khariff loan of Rs. 48,000/- for the season of 2016 and the O.P No. 2 has also deduct the premium for crop Insurance at the time of availing crop loan leaving Rs. 2000/- in the pass book towards the premium and other miscellaneous charges. The accounts statement of pass book of the petitioner from 5^th August 2009 to July 2017 suggests and explains the manner of granting loan, deduction of compulsory premium for crop insurance and payment of the compensation of crop failure in the previous years. The loan availed by a farmer/beneficiary under KCC Loan premium is retained from out of the KCC Limit compulsorily and the B.M remit the premium of the Loanee farmer under a list to the O.P No. 3.The scheme for farmers are being undertaken by the Government of India along with all the States through out the States of the Nation with an objectives for the upliftment and development of the economic standard of the farmers as a whole. National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) is one among the schemes which is also known as Rastriya Krusi Yojana and this Yojana has been implemented by the State Government of Orissa through different co-operative societies, Nodal Banks and other agencies to facilitate loan and financial assistance to the beneficiaries/farmers to cover them under crop Insurance and to pay for the compensation of any loss arising out of draught and other calamities suffered by the farmers. The State Government of Odisha has been implementing this Yojana through O.P No. 2 and it adheres to the rules and guidelines prescribed by the NAIS. The O.P No. 1 being the head of the District delegated with powers on behalf of the State to take care of this Yojana.   The Government  declared 70% draught for the block of the petitioner in the year 2016 and accordingly the KCC holders who had availed loan from O.P No.2 and other banks have been awarded with compensation as per the notification and they have already received their amount from the O.P No. 2 , except the present petitioner. The petitioner contacted the O.P.No. 2 about the status of the crop relief but the O.P No. 2 replied that since the name of this petitioner along with other 30 to 40 names of the farmer was by mistakenly left out and the list containing their names and premium was not remitted to the O.P No. 3 and as such the O.P No. 3 has not released the compensation to the petitioner. The Complainant visited the Branch on 30.06.2017 and on 03.07.2017 and gave a request letter but the bank advised the petitioner to knock the door of the court. The petitioner is entitled for Rs. 35,000/- towards the relief of crop Insurance for 70% crop failure.
2.  The O.P No. 1 and 2 are set expartee.

The O.P No. 3 gave his version that the case against the O.P No. 3 is not maintainable in the eye of law and on the facts available on records. The present dispute is also not a consumer dispute as per the provision of CP ACT, especially as against the O. P No. 3 as there is no specific allegation against the O.P No. 3. As per the version, no such premium was received from the Complainant and hence rightly the complainant was not covered under crop insurance.

3. Perused the account statement of the pass-book filed by the Complainant. Compulsory deduction of premium is to be made by the financing Bank for NAIS. In the present case the O.P.No.2 neither deducted the amount nor remitted the premium to the O.P.No.3. As a result the Complainant debarred to get the crop insurance amount as declared by the government. Neither the O.P. No.2 demanded the insurance amount by any letter not deducted the premium from the loan account. Accordingly the O.P.No.2 is deficient in its service. It is ordered:

          ORDER

          The complaint is allowed ex-parte. The O.P. No.2 is liable to pay Rs. 35000/- to-wards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- to-wards harassment with 7% interest P.A. from the day of filing of this complaint i.e. 04.08.2017 within 30 days from the day of receipt of this order failing which the amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realisation.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 27^th day of July, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.