BEFORE THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
C.D.CASE NO. 55/ 2019
Natabar Behera, aged about 72 years,
S/o Late Lingaraj Behera, resident of
Village/ PO – Asarala, PS- Bolgarh,
Dist : Khurda, Odisha
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
- The Secretary, Khurda Central Cooperative Society,
At/PO/Dist – Khurda
- Secretary, Asarala Cooperative Society, At/PO- Asarala,
PS- Bolgarh, Dist : Khurda, Odisha
- Manaager, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
At/PO- BMC Bhawani Mall, B.Block, 5th Floor,
Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist - Khurda
For the complainant …. Sri P.K.Mohapatra
For the OP.1 … P.Ch..Mishra (A/R)
For the OP. 2 … R..Mishra (A/R )
For the OP.3 … Exparte
Date of filing : 18/02/2019
Date of disposal : 12/03/2020
ORDER
MR.P.C.MISHRA, PRESIDENT :
1. The complainant being a poor cultivator having no source of income and being solely dependant on cultivation, availed Khariff loan of Rs.30,000/- from Asarala Service Co-operative Society (OP No.2) under the Khurda Central Co-operative Society (OP No.1) for his agricultural purposes during the year 2017-18. The said loan was insured with the OP No.3 i.e. Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd., under the Prime Minister Crop Insurance Scheme and its premium of 2% share amounting to Rs.600/- was recovered from the complainant as per the premium receipt granted by the OP No.2 on dated 20/07/2017. Similarly also, various other farmers of the same locality availed Khariff loan from the OP No.2 during the said year and the entire premium amounts so collected by the OP.2 from 339 farmers amounting to Rs.4,58,200/- in total was credited in favour of the Insurer - OP.3. While the said insurance policies were in force, the crops were severely affected due to super cyclone in the area and after due enquiry, the government submitted the loss report basing on which, OP.3 paid 45.46% damage compensation to the borrowers. But, the complainant was not given his compensation money amounting to Rs.13,645/- in spite of his repeated approaches to the OPs and no action was taken on his written grievance. Therefore, finding no other alternative, he at last filed the present complaint U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 praying for directing the OP.3 to pay him the insurance claim amount of Rs.13,645/- along with interest, compensation and cost of litigation. Hence this case.
2. After receiving notice, the OPs 1 & 2 filed their separate written versions admitting the factual aspect of the case and supporting the case of the complainant.
But the OP.No.3 neither entered appearance nor filed any written version in spite of repeated notice issued by registered post, hence set exparte vide order dated 3/10/2019.
3. After hearing both sides and going through the entire case records, we find that there is no dispute or controversy in the factual aspect of the case of complainant as narrated above. Also it is fully corroborates by the averments made in the separate written versions filed by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and well proved by the documents filed by the complainant as Annexure – 1 to 4. During the course of hearing of the case, the complainant also filed various other documents including the information obtained by him under the RTI Act from the office of the D.A.O., Khurda vide letter No.2924 dated 24/10/2019, showing the percentage of the claim in respect of different Gram Panchayats of the concerned Bolgarh block in khariff, 2017 under PMFBY, as per which the claim of Asarala Gram Panchayat to which the complainant belongs to is 45%. After carefully scrutinizing the entire materials on record as discussed above, we are fully satisfied that the complainant having availed the loan for the cyclone damaged crop in question and insured it under the OP.No.3 by paying the insurance premium amount of Rs.600/-, he is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 13,645/- from the insurer- OP.3 like that of other similarly placed borrowers to whom such compensation money has already been paid by such insurer. There is absolutely no reason to deprive the complainant of getting the compensation being a bonafide consumer and therefore, non-payment of the same by the insurer – OP.3, amounts to serious deficiency in service. Also the OP No.3 has committed unfair trade practice in adopting a pick and choose method regarding disbursement of compensation to the borrowers and by ignoring the case of complainant without any rhyme and reason while granting compensation to the other similarly placed borrowers, which violates the fundamental principle of natural justice and equity. In the facts and circumstances therefore, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to hold that the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed. Hence ordered that :-
ORDER
The complaint is allowed on contest against the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and exparte against the OP No.3 with cost. The OP No.3 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,645/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. from 18/02/2019 till the date of actual payment. The OP No.3 is further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment along with a further sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation. The above order shall be complied with by the OP No.3 within a period of one month from the date of communication, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order against the OP No.3 in accordance with law.
The order is pronounced on this day the 12th March, 2020 in the open Forum under the seal & signature of the Forum.
PRESIDENT
Dictated & corrected by me
President
I agree I agree
Member (W) Member
(MISS K.NAYAK) (B.R.SWAIN)
Transcribed by Smt.M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno :
