Date of filing:- 26/02/2018.

                                                                                                                                              Date of Argument:- 23/09/2022.

                                                                                Date of Order/Judgement:-07/10/2022.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 20 of 2018.

Meka Antalaxmi, aged about 60 years, W/o. Meka Ramesh Babu, R/o .village. Kharmunda, P.s./Tahasil. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.       

                                                                                                            …….     .....       Complainant.

V e r s u s

1. Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Bargarh, At. Hospital Road, Bargarh,  

P.s/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh.

2. National Agricultural Insurance Scheme through D.A.O. Bargarh,

At./Po/P.s/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh.

3. Project Director Cum Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bargarh,     At/Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.

..            …..  Opposite Party.                         

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-                :- Sri M.K. Satapathy and  Associate.

For the Opposite Party No.1 :-    :-  Sri B.Behera and Associates.

For the Opposite Party No.2 :-    :-  Exparte.

For the Opposite Party No.3 :-    :-  A.G.P.

                                                -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy   .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agarwal             .....         .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.30/09/2022.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President:-

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant incurred crop loan of Rs.300000/-(Rupees three lakh) only for her land of mouza Kharmunda, Ps. Attabira from Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 debited the insurance premium from her account. During 2015-16, 31.8% crop damage was notified by the Govt. and the Complainant is entitled for Rs.95,400/-(Rupees ninety five thousand four hundred)only towards insurance benefit. Complaint was made before the collector, Bargarh and the Opposite Parties were reminded. On 04/01/2018 the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 but the Opposite Party No.1 denied.

Being aggrieved this Complaint was filed.

2. The Opposite Party No.1 Andhra Bank, Bargarh Branch in version submitted that the Complainant has not disclosed the premium paid.

Further the Opposite Party No.1 contended that there is no cause of action and the Opposite Party No.1 is not deficient in its service and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

3. The Opposite Party No.3, Deputy Director Agriculture, Bargarh submitted that Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana guidelines are to be followed. The Opposite party No.3 is not liable for deficiency in service.
4. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. The Complainant has filed Andhra Bank A/c No. 003813100006728 in the name of  Meka  Anantalaxmi of village Kharmunda, Ps. Attabira. In the said account on 05/10/2015 an amount of Rs.7500/-(Rupees seven thousand five hundred) only has been paid towards insurance premium. Correspondence has been made to Collector, Bargarh. Letter No. 1930 dated 27/07/2017 has been filed, the circular of payment of claims for khariff 2016 under PMFBY. Another list has been filed showing indemnity payable to farmers under PMFBY Scheme 2016 season. The Opposite Parties have not filed any document.
5. After careful examination of the documents it is observed that the Complainant has filed the Complaint in a whimsical way. The land particulars are not mentioned for indemnity claim.

             It is observed that Rs.7500/-(Rupees seven thousand five hundred) only premium has been paid by the Complainant where as the Opposite Party No.1 not uttered a single word on the premium paid nor disclosed the name of the insurance company while deducting premium it was the duty of Opposite Party No.1  to disclose about the  insurance Company and a statement to the effect whether the premium is remitted or not. Opposite Party No.1 is silent on the matter which amounts to deficiency in service.

            The Opposite Party No.3 in para 3 of the version submitted that the Complainant is entitled to get insurance claim as per the guidelines of P.M.F.B.Y but failed to give reply the percentage of damage declared by govt. The Complainant also failed to file any document to that effect. The Opposite Party No.1 also not disclosed the percentage of damage during khariff 2015-16 of village Kharmunda. Taking into consideration the harassment made to the Complainant and deficiency in service of Opposite party No.1 the crop damage is calculated at 31.8% and accordingly it is Ordered:-

O R D E R

The Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1 on contest. The Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay compensation claim of Rs.95,400/-(Rupees ninety five thousand four hundred) only along with 5% interest w.e.f. 05/10/2015 within one month, failing which the amount will carry 7% interest P.A. till realization.

Litigation cost of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand) only to be paid in addition.

                        Order pronounced in open court on this 07^th day of October 2022.

                        Supply free copies to the parties.

Typed to my dictation

                                                                                              and corrected by me.                                                                                           

            I  agree/-                                                                       

      ( Anju Agarwarl)                                                          ( Dr. Ramakanta  Satapathy)

        M e m b e r (w)                                                                         P r e s i d e n t.

     Uploaded by

Sri Dusmanta Padhan

     Office Assistant