Date of filing:-22/03/2017.
Date of Order:-06/08/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 16 of 2017.
Mahadev Sahu, aged about 20(twenty) years, S/o Ghanashyam Sahu, R/o-Vill-Majhipali, P.o. Majhipali, Via-Laumunda, P.s Bijepur, Dist-Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Vrs.
Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Barpali Branch, At/Po. Barpali, Ps. Barpali, Dist. Bargarh.
National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, through D.A.O., Bargarh.
Project Director-Cum-Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bargarh, At/Po. Bargarh, Ps/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri S.P.Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri A.K.Patra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two)
and the Opposite Party No.3(three):- Sri S.K.Naik, Associate Lawyer, Bargarh.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.06/08/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case ;-
The case of the Complainant is that he has incurred a crop loan from the Opposite Party No.1(one) amounting to Rs.47,500/-(Rupees forty seven thousand five hundred)only for cultivation purpose in his land situated at Mouza-Majhipali under Badigoan Panchayat and also he has renewed the said Loan Account No.239501000004891 by repaying the accuring interest dues on him and also paid premium for the crop insurance under the N.A.I.S and in the mean time in the year 2015-16 the panchayat under which his said lands situates was declared as drought effected area by the Government of Odisha @ 31 %(thirty one percent) entitling him for an amount of Rs.14,725/-(Rupees fourteen thousand seven hundred twenty five)only.
In furtherance of his case to his utter surprise, on being asked by him came to know that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has not remitted the said insurance premium amount to the Opposite Party No.2(two) & No.3(three) which in his views amounts to deficiencies of service on his part as he has been debarred from getting the benefit provided by the Govt. in lieu of the loss of his crop due to the effect of drought. But the Opposite Party No.1(one) bluntly denied to his claim putting him in to mental agony and financial loss, thus he preferred to file the case before the Forum claiming the Insurance amount of Rs.14,725/-(Rupees fourteen thousand seven hundred twenty five)only along with Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only against his mental agony and litigation expenses respectively. And in support his case has filed the pass book of the Complainant bearing Account No.239501000004891 and a written notes of arguments coupled with oral submission in support of his case .
Having gone through the Complaint, the documents and on hearing the oral submission of the concerned counsel the case was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Parties and in response all of them appeared before the Forum and submitted their respective versions, And going through the same it has been observed from the version of the Opposite Party No.1(one) that it has admitted to have given the loan amount to the Complainant but at the same time has also admitted that it has got no role to play except as a post office in transferring the same and thus has denied to have committed any deficiencies in rendering service on his part, further it has contended that the Complainant has obtaint a K.C.C. loan for the self same land vide Khata No.62(sixty two) from the Laumunda P.A.C.S. Ltd. thus claims that the Complainant is dis-entitled to get the insurance benefit in as much as as the amount of loan to the tune of Rs.89,794/-(Rupees eighty nine thousand seven hundred ninety four)only is pending dues on him.
Further it reveals from the version of the Opposite Party No.2(two) & No.3(three), they ignorant of the assertion made by the Complainant with regard to his contention if insurance amount has been granted by the insurance company in his favor, further they have contended that on their inquiry they got information that the Complainant has already insured crop loan of Rs. 47,500/-(Rupees forty seven thousand five hundred)only from Opposite Party No.1(one) and Service Co-operative Society, Laumunda by depositing the premium against the insurance and also discloses that they are being ignorant of the fact as to whether Opposite Party No.1(one) has received the claim and that whether the Opposite Party No.1(one) has ensured the deposit of the premium in favor of the Complainant or not, in view of such discrepancies have prayed to dismiss the case.
On perusal of the complaint, the version of the Opposite Parties some points have cropped of before us for proper adjudication of the case as follows.
Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim as sought for ?
Firstly while dealing with the point No.1(one) it has come to our observation that admittedly an account of the Complainant is in operation with the bank of Opposite Party No.1(one) and also it is in active operation from where it can be safely presumed that he is a loanee farmer having taken a loan amounting to Rs.47,500/-(Rupees forty seven thousand five hundred)only for his cultivation purpose and as per his case in the mean time the area of cultivation has undergone in to drought for which the Governmnt of Odisha has declared the area as drought effected area and the Complainant has claimed to have deposited some amount in his said account for insurance purpose, and also it has never been denied by the Opposite Party No.1(one), rather it has admitted to have acted upon as a messenger as a post office in his version it’self but at the relevant time it is found that it has not remitted the same amount of premium to the insurance authority which is his bounden duty as per the mandatory circular issued by the Government that even if a loanee farmer has not deposited the required premium then also it’s duty is to remit the required amount of premium amount to the insurance authority by facilitating with further amount loan of the amount of premium i.e to the Opposite Party No.2(two) & No.3(three) to insure the crop of the said loanee farmer but in this case the Opposite Party No.1(one) has not done so even if it has admitted to act like a post office for the purpose which is in our prudent view is deficiencies of service on his part for which is liable to make good of the loss sustained by the Complainant for such of his acts further more the claim of the Opposite Party No.2(two) & No.3(three) that the Complainant has also insured for crops loan of Rs.47,500/-(Rupees forty seven thousand five hundred)only from Opposite Party No.1(one) and Co-operative Society, Laumunda is not evident from any corner since no documents or evidence has been laid from their side to substantiate as such is not tenable in the eye of Law, hence our view is expressed in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly while dealing with the points as to whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim, we have already discussed the case in detail in our above paragraph, and opined therein in favor of the Complainant hence now we don’t find any merit with any other claim of the Opposite Parties in disputing with the claim of the Complainant but to answer in favor of the Complainant, but at the same time it has been observed from the materials available in the record that the Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) have got no liability in any manner as have not been provided with the required amount of premium with them by the Opposite Party No.1(one), hence in our unanimous view the Opposite Party is solely liable to compensate the loss sustained by the Complainant, and the Opposite Party No.2(two) & No.3(three) are exonerated from the Claim. Hence order follows.
O R D E R.
Hence in view of the above facts and circumstances the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay an amount of Rs.14,725/-(Rupees fourteen thousand seven hundred twenty five) with interest @ 6%(six percent) per annum from the date filing of this case i.e. Dt.22/03/2017 till the date of Order towards the compensation against the loss of crops and an amount Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards the compensation for the mental agony undergone by the Complainant and towards the litigation expenses respectively within thirty days from the receipt of the order, in default of which the total awarded amount would accrue an interest @ 9%(nine percent) per annum till the actual realization of the total amount.
Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Forum, in the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and the Opposite Party No.2(two) & No.3(three) are exonerated from any claim against them, and the case is disposed off to-day i.e. on Dt. 06/08/2018.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W)
