DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No. 13 of 2013
Jagadish Brahmachari, S/o. Late Prasanna Kumar Brahmachari, aged about 47 years, R/o. village – Matupali, P.S. Ullunda, District – Subarnapur.
………… Complainant
Vrs.
1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ullunda Branch, At/P.O./P.S. Ullunda, District – Subarnapur.
2. The General Manager, G.I.C., Plot No.7, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar, District – Khurda, Pin – 751007.
…… Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri R. Agrawal
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 …………. Sri B.C.Panda
Present
1. Sri S.C.Nayak, President
2. Smt. S.Mishra Lady Member
Date of Judgment Dt.02.03.2016
J U D G M E N T
By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.
The complainant Jagadish Brahmachari has filed this complaint case against the B.M., S.B.I., Ullunda Branch alleging deficiency of service on his part. Although the G.M., G.I.C., Bhubaneswar has been made O.P. No.2 in this complaint case, the complainant has not claimed any relief against him.
The complainant’s case in a nut shell is that he is a cultivator. He is the recorded tenant of khata No.52 and 168/21 of Mouza – Matupali, P.S. Sindhol measuring total area Ac.1.995 dec. and Ac.2.850 dec. respectively Matupali is under Sindhol G.P.
That Govt. of India has started comprehensive crop insurance scheme. For the said scheme the O.P. No.1 was authorized to collect premium from the cultivators and send it to O.P. No.2 through his nodal agency in consolidated manner by describing the numbers of farmers, crop season, insured area and Mouza – alongwith premium amount. In the said scheme G.P. was taken as unit. As per the scheme in case of crop failure the O.P. No.2 has to indemnify the loss with reference to insured area of each G.P. and the compensation amount has to be paid to O.P. No.1 through its nodal agency and O.P. No.1 in its turn disburse the amount to the cultivators.
It is the case of complainant that he has taken loan of Rs.50,000/- from the Bank of O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 deducted the insurance premium amount from the complainant. The complainant has insured the entire paddy crops of an area Ac.4.845 dec. situated at Matupali under Sindhol G.P.
-: 2 :-
That in the same year the entire crops of the complainant and other farmers of Sindhol G.P. were completely damaged. Govt. declared 53.494% crop damage in the Panchayat of complainant.
That the O.P. No.2 has already released the compensation amount as per crop damage report to O.P. No.1 through its nodal agency.
The complainant avers that as per rule he was to get Rs.26,747/- as compensation. But the O.P. No.1 has deposited Rs.8696/- in the account of the complainant. Inspite of several approaches the O.P. No.1 has not paid the rest amount. This is deficiency of service on the part of O.P. No.1.
Hence the complainant has prayed that the O.P. No.1 be directed to pay the compensation a mount of Rs.26,747/- to the complainant. He has also claimed Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation.
The O.P. No.1 has filed version. According to this O.P. the complainant has submitted in his application as well as in other documents that Mouza – Matupali comes under Chadeipank G.P. at the time of availing of loan. It is admitted by this O.P. that the complainant has availed agricultural loan of Rs.50,000/- and had insured the lands of Mouza – Matupali measuring an area of Ac.4.845 dec. in his loan documents. It is the averment of this O.P. that in all the documents the name of G.P. has been written as Chadeipank and the complainant has signed in English in all these documents. It is further averred by this O.P. that at no point of time the complainant intimated the O.P. No.1 regarding change of G.P. It is the averment of this O.P. that after declaration of high percentage of crop damage in Sindhol G.P. the complainant has filed this case intentionally. This O.P. claimed that he has not incurred any financial loss to the complainant and there has not been any negligence from his side. As per Chadeipank G.P. crop loss, the complainant is eligible to get Rs.8696/- and the same amount has been deposited in the account of the complainant. As such this O.P. prays that this complaint case be dismissed with cost.
The O.P. No.2 has given a very detailed and exhaustive written version. The gist of his version is that crop loss is decided as per scheme procedure only and not by any other method which is on the basis of yield data based on minimum 4 number of crop cutting experience at G.P. level. No claim has to be lodged by individual farmer and crop losses if at all admissible through the above mentioned procedure are released to the concerned nodal banks automatically. The scheme (NAIS Annexure - II) specifically contemplates a clause under special conditions for F.I.S./Nodal banks/loan disbursing point about the losses due to erroneous declaration by the financial institutions.
In case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/omissions/ commissions of the nodal Bank/Branch/PACS, the concerned institutions only shall make good all such losses. In view of the above foregoing evidently, there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of this O.P. and he prays that the complaint case be dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.2 remained absent during hearing.
-: 3 :-
From the pleadings of the parties, submissions made during hearing the following points are required to be determined by the Forum :-
i. Has there been deficiency of service by the O.Ps ?
ii. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
At the outset it must be mentioned that the complainant has not claimed any relief against the O.P. No.2. In his complaint petition in para 6 the complainant has stated that O.P. No.2 has already released the compensation amount as per crop damage report to O.P. No.1 through his nodal agency. Since the O.P. No.2 has performed his job, we have not found any deficiency of service on his part.
Now it is to be seen whether there has been deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No.1 or not. The O.P. No.1 has alleged that in the loan application form and other documents the complainant has mentioned the name of the G.P. as Chadeipank. In the instant case the O.P. No.1 has filed the loan application dt.23.07/2010. This loan must have been renewed in the year 2011. At the time of loan application or during the time of renewal of loan, it was the duty of the complainant to inform the bank the correct name of the G.P. So in the instant case there has been contributory negligence from the side of the complainant. Equally it was also the duty of the Bank to conduct F.I. i.e. field inspection at the time of sanction or renewal of the loan. Had the bank conducted field inspection in a diligent manner, the correct name of the G.P. could have been ascertained. So there has been negligence and deficiency of service by the Bank in as much it has not conducted field inspection properly. But as there has been contributory negligence from the side of the complainant, the O.P. No.1 will be proportionately liable for deficiency of service.
Now it is to be seen to what relief the complainant is entitled. Since the O.P. No.1 has been made proportionately liable for deficiency of service the complainant cannot be compensated fully. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances in to consideration we think a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice. We direct the O.P. No.1 to pay this amount to the complainant within one month from the date of order.
O R D E R
It is hereby ordered as follows :-
The O.P. No.1 shall pay to the complainant Rs.7000/- within one month from the date of this order. Complaint is partly allowed.
Dated the 2nd day of March 2016
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Smt. S.Mishra Sri S.C. Nayak
Lady Member President
Dt.02.03.2016 Dt.02.03.2016
