DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SUBARNAPUR
C.C. No.04 of 2020
Gangadhar Mahakur, aged about 53 years, S/o. Sapne Mahakur, R/o. village Kirtipur, P.O. Khaliapali, P.S. Sonepur, District - Subarnapur,
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. Deputy General Manager, Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. Regional Office represented by its Regional Manager, 87, 1st Floor The Mother, Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751007.
2. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. At - Plate B & C, Office Block – 1, 5th Floor , East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi - 110023
3. The Principal Secretary, Co-operation Department, Govt. of Odisha, Lokaseva Bhawan (Orissa Secretariat), Bhubaneswar – 751001.
4. Union of India, represented by Secretary Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri R.Agrawal
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 & 2 …………. Sri S. Hota
Present
1. Sri U.N. Purohit, President
2. Sri H. Padhan Member
Date of Filing Dt.17.01.2020
Date of Hearing Dt.21.04.2023
Date of Order Dt.08.05.2023
J U D G E M E N T
By Sri U.N.Purohit, P.
The complainant filed complaint petition U/s.12 of C.P. Act 1986. The brief fact of the complainant is that he is a farmer and cultivating lands of Khata No.330/31, 330/32, and 330/48 as well as lands of Khata No.76 of Mouza – Kirtipur. He was cultivating the lands and avail K.C.C. loan from Union Bank Sonepur for the year 2017 and insured the crops as loanee farmer for all the plots of Khata No.330/31, 330/32, and 330/48. The complainant being Karta of joint family cultivating all the lands in possession of joint family. Due to scarcity of rainfall in the year 2017 the complainant insured his crop as non loanee farmer against all
-: 2 :-
plots of Khata No.330/31, 330/32, and 330/48 and Khata No.76 through Saferisk Insurance broker agency appointed by O.P. No.1 for non loanee insurance. The acknowledgement receipt of crop insurance premium issued by the agency to the complainant on 29.07.2017.
The complainant received Rs.38,303/- as insurance claim being loanee farmer but not yet received compensation as non loanee farmer. The complainant received notice from O.P. No.1 which was issued on 05.10.2018 bearing No.3366/2018 that the lands insured twice as loanee and non loanee farmer and the same lands not insured by others. After receiving a letter the complainant replied through Affidavit that due to ignorance of the scheme provisions he has cultivated all plots of Khata No.330/31, 330/32, and 330/48 for non loanee insurance which was insured by the Bank as loanee insurance also. The complainant clarified plots of Khata No.76 was insured in his non loanee insurance on 25.02.2019 only and intimated excludes all the plots of Khata No.330/31, 330/32, and 330/48 which insured as loanee farmer, insured only Khata No.76 as non loanee insurance. The complainant further made reminder for disbursement of compensation on 14.05.2019, but the O.P. did not respond the same till date and claim amount of Rs.1,24,930/- not yet paid.
The double insurance is due to ignorance of complainant and not intentional and the complainant should not be deprived of his legitimate claim against Khata No.76 which has no double insurance. The complainant due to deficiency of service of the O.ps. has suffered mental agony and pain as such the O.Ps. are liable for compensation of crop loss Rs.1,24,930/-, cost of correspondences etc. Rs.520/-, mental tension suffered Rs.50,000/-, deficiency of service Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.10,000/- in total Rs.2,35,450/-. The complainant files premium receipt dt.29.07.2017, letter No.3366 of 2018, dt.05.10.2018 issued by the O.P., Xerox copy of Affidavit dt.25.02.2019, reply and submission of complainant to the O.P. on 25.2.2019, Khata No.330/31, 330/32, 330/48 and 76, Regd. Letter, reminder by the complainant on 14.05.2019.
-: 3 :-
The O.P. No.1 and 2 appear through their advocate on 12.09.2022 and filed their version on 10.04.2023, O.P. No.3 and 4 already filed their version, the O.P. No.4 authorized O.P. No.3 to appear and file version, the O.P. No.3 accordingly appear and filed version on behalf of O.P. No.4 and for himself.
The case of O.P. No.3 and 4 they are being the Nodal agency implementing PMFBY as monitoring authority for all co-operative Bank in the State. It is admitted that after crop cutting experiment report from the District assessment of loss process is started for settlement of claim of the farmer. Basing on loss assessment report indemnity claim is settled. But in case of complainant who has avail crop loan from Union Bank of India once again the complainant insured the same plots and khata lands as non loanee farmer through Saferisk insurance Broker except of Khata No.76. As per guideline farmer should not avail K.C.C. loan from multiple Bank on same land and insured the same land more than once as a non loanee farmer if such case reported/identified the insurance cover will be terminated and the premium shall be forfeited and necessary legal action may be taken for such mal practice. The O.P. No.1 and 2 in their version also. Admitted that the complainant had insured 10 plots of Khata No.330/31, 330/32, and 330/48 measuring 1.78 hector under three khatian as loanee farmer through Union Bank of India, Sonepur. Village Kirtipur of Mayurudan G.P. had a claim percentage of 47.82% as per notification of Kharif Season 2017 total claim of the complainant as loanee farmer Rs.38,303.34 has been paid as loanee farmer on 25.06.2018, the complainant insured 34 plots under 4(four) Khatian through Saferisk Insurance Broker Pvt. Ltd. as non loanee farmer, 10 plots three khatian which are common to the plot insured by him as loanee farmer as well as non loanee farmer so the claim of those plots have not been considered for insurance claim.
Further O.P. claims that considering interest of complainant his claim not rejected but have been reduced will calculating total area insured to provide the complainant eligible claim. The complainant insured 24 plots of Khata No.76 as sole
-: 4 :-
cultivator of Mouza – Kirtipur under Mayurudan G.P., the R.O.R. recorded in the name of Chandu Mahakur, Sapne Mahakur, Saraswati Danga, Chandu Mahakur is paternal uncle, Sapne Mahakur father of complainant and Saraswati Danga paternal aunt of complainant, the complainant is son and legal heir of one share holder Sapne Mahakur, as per affidavit submitted by the complainant, the complainant is the Karta of joint family property comprising Sapne Mahakur, Sarswati Danga and Lalbabu Mahakur (only son of deceased Chandu Mahakur) and himself. In order to resolve the case of complainant the O.Ps. to confirm the sole liability interest of the farmer of the said plots and this requires a considerable time for physical verification, Bank documents and land department documents. After all verification the O.Ps. confirm that all 24 Plots under Khata No.76 have been insured by the complainant only and no other farmer has insured these plots and there is no probability of double insurance of these 24 plots one out of 24 plots as non-cultivable lands hence claim is payable for 23 plots. After taking to consideration the fact there are three shareholders the complainant is eligible to receive claims for his share of lands only i.e. 1/3rd share of total insured area. The complainant being legal heir of one of the shareholder. Disbursement of claim of complainant required procedural permission from proper authority there by required considerable time. They admitted and assured to pay the legible claim of complainant very soon pertaining to khata No.76 as per his share of land after obtaining approval. As it appears from the complaint petition, version of O.Ps. and documents filed by the complainant as well as O.Ps., the complainant has insured the crops relating to plots of 4(four) khata of Mouza – Kirtipur under Sonepur Tahasil as loanee farmer and non loanee farmer. The complainant has insured lands of Khata No.330/31, 330/32, and 330/48 only as non loanee farmer. So the three khata has double insured and the complainant is not eligible for compensation twice for the self same plot, but the complainant has not insured Khata No.76 as loanee farmer and not obtained any loan against Khata No.76 as such he has insured Khata No.76 as non loanee farmer. While the complainant
-: 5 :-
make insurance as non loanee farmer on 29.07.2017 he has insured the plots involved or insured as loanee farmer due to ignorance and hurried manner for last date of crop insurance that was 31.07.2017, it is confirmed that the plots involved in khata No.76 was not insured by the complainant as loanee farmer. So the complainant insured the same as non loanee farmer due to over side or ignorance he has insured plots of Khata No.330/31, 330/32, and 330/48. The O.Ps. No.1 and 2 insurance company admitted the complainant had insured plots of Khata No.76 as non loanee farmer eligible for compensation of insurance claim. The Khata No.76 consists of 24 plots out of 24 plots one plot is non cultivable as such the complainant is eligible to get compensation for only 23 plots of khata No.76. The Khata No.76 recorded in the name of Sapne Mahakur, Saraswati Danga and Chandu Mahakur, the complainant is son of Sapne Mahakur. The complainant claim to be Karta of joint family consisting his father, paternal aunt and son of paternal uncle Chandu Mahakur namely Lalbabu Mahakur. As per Hindu Law for the joint family coparcenary property any male coparcener may be Karta of the family, the Karta of the family has a special right to manage the family and property of joint family he can borrow, mortgage, alienate for the development of the property and business of family. In this case the complainant claims to have Karta of the family accordingly he has filed affidavit and O.Ps. has confirmed that the property i.e. plots of khata No.76 not insured by any other co-sharer and there is no claim against the same. The other co-sharers has not disputed the rights or status of the complainant as Karta of the family.
The O.Ps. admits that the complainant is eligible for compensation of 23 plots to which they have settled one claim computation sheet and it is admitted that the compensation for entire area is calculated Rs.94,746.67 P. The O.Ps. only disputed that the complainant being one share holder he is eligible only 1/3rd share as he has only rights to insured 1/3rd share of the property, but they have failed to appreciate principle of Hindu Law relating to rights of Karta, the complainant has insured the
-: 6 :-
property not being the legal heir of one of the co-sharer of the property but he has insured the land being Karta of the family. So he is eligible to get entire compensation for the benefit of joint family and the same be utilized for the development of the family.
So from the above discussion we find that the O.Ps. are deficiency of service disputing the rights of Karta of joint family of the complainant as there is no dispute has come to knowledge of the O.ps. the complainant is not Karta of the family. The O.Ps. are liable to pay crop insurance compensation as they computed in computation sheet for the eligible 23 plots amounting to Rs.94,746.67 p. with permissible rate of interest i.e. 10% from 05.10.2018 from the date of dispute by the O.Ps. regarding the rights of the complainant and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation. Complaint is partly allowed.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal of the parties.
File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this judgment.
Dated the 8th day of May 2023
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Padhan Sri U.N.Purohit
Member President
Dt.08.05.2023 Dt.08.05.2023
