DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No.2 of 2013
Gita Danga, W/o. Late Bikarttan Danga, aged about 38 years, R/o. village - Majhimunda, P.O. Lachhipur, P.S. Dunguripali, District – Subarnapur.
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. The Branch Manager, Utkal Gramya Bank, Lachhipur Branch, P.O. Lachhipur, P.S. Dunguripali, District – Subarnapur,
2. The General Manager, G.I.C., Plot No.7, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar, District – Khurda, Pin – 751007.
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for Complainant ………. Sri R.Agrawal
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 ………. Sri M.K.Dash
Advocate for the O.P. No.2 ………. Sri S.K.Hota
Present
Sri S.C.Nayak, President
Smt.S.Mishra, Lady Member
Sri H.Padhan, Male Member
Date of Judgment Dt.30.06.2017
J U D G M E N T
By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.
This is complainant’s case alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.
The complainant case as unfurled in the complaint petition is that her deceased husband is the recorded tenant of khata No.56 of Mouza – Majhimunda comprising Ac.3.272 dec. of land. She is in possession of the said land. Govt. of India has started comprehensive crop insurance scheme. As per insurance scheme the O.P. No.1 was to identify the cultivators in the event of crop loss and collect premium. The O.P. No.2 was to indemnify the loss with reference to area of insured.
During Khariff season of 2011 the complainant insured the paddy crops of entire Ac.3.212 dec. of land after payment of insurance amount for crop loan of Rs.28,000/- . In the same year the entire crops of the complainant and other villagers of Rengali Panchayat was damaged for which Govt. declared 79.43% crop damage in the Panchayat of the complainant.
-: 2 :-
The O.P. No.2 has already released the compensation amount as per crop damage in favour of the O.P. No.1. As per rule the complainant has to get Rs.21,000/- as compensation for her crop losses. But it is learnt that the O.P. No.1 has deposited Rs.3,331/- to the complainant. Despite repeated approaches the O.P. No.1 has neither paid the actual compensation amount nor assigned any reason for the same. Therefore the complainant has alleged deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No.1. Due to this the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment, financial loss. Hence the complainant has prayed that she should be given the compensation amount of Rs.21,000/- immediately. She has also claimed Rs.50000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.5000/- for cost of litigation.
The O.Ps. were noticed in this case. Although the O.P. No.1 appeared through advocate, he has not filed any written version inspite of several adjournments for that purpose. The O.P. No.2 has given a very detailed and comprehensive version. The gist of his version is that in Kharif 2011 the actual yield data for paddy crop for Rengali G.P. of Sonepur Block was less then the threshold yield, therefore short fall was reported in connection with Rengali G.P. of Sonepur Block. Crop loss is declared as per the scheme procedure only and not by any other method. The scheme 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. The relevant clause is extracted here under for ready reference.
“ 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 institution only shall make good all such losses.”
Therefore, this O.P. avers that there has not been any deficiency of service on his part and he claims that the complaint case be dismissed.
Inspite of repeated adjournments the parties did not appear for hearing so this case is being disposed basing on the material available on record. We have perused the documents on record. It is admitted in the written version of O.P. No.2 that there was crop damage in Rengali G.P. during Kharif 2011. The O.P. No.2 has already released the compensation amount in favour of O.P. No.1. We have also perused NAIS Annexure-II From clause 5 of
-: 3 :-
the same we ascertain that if a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/omissions/commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACS the concerned institution only shall make good all such losses.
In the instant case, the O.P. No.2 has already released the compensation amount to O.P. No.1. It is not known why the compensation amount was not disbursed to the complainant. The O.P. No.1 neither filed version nor appeared before us to explain this point. So we are of the considered opinion that there has been deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No.1. So we direct the O.P. No.1 to pay to the complainant the actual compensation amount of Rs.21,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of this case the complainant is also entitled to Rs.3000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation. We order accordingly.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered as follows – The O.P. No.1 shall pay to the complainant Rs.26,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six thousands) only within one month from the date of order.
Dated the 30th June 2017
Typed to my dictation
I agree. I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Pradhan, Smt.S.Mishra, Sri S.C.Nayak
Male Member Lady Member President
Dt.30.06.2017 Dt.30.06.2017 Dt.30.06.2017
