DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No.12 of 2012
Hajaru Merlli, S/o. Late Dhaneswar Merlli, aged about 65 years, R/o. village - Chahatakhol, P.O. Matiapali, 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.17.03.2017
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 case of the complainant is that he is a cultivator. The Central Govt. has started comprehensive crop insurance scheme to indemnify the complainant in the event of crop loss. As per the scheme the O.P. No.1 collects premium from the cultivators and send it to O.P. No.2 with necessary details.
In case of crop failure the O.P. No.2 has to indemnify the loss with reference to the concerned area and the O.P. No.1 disburses the amount to the cultivators. In the year 2011 the complainant insured his entire paddy crops comprising Ac.12.000 dec. of lands and paid premium of Rs.2140/-. The complainant also submitted necessary documents before the O.P. No.1.
-: 2 :-
The complainant alleged that in the said year the entire crop of the complainant and other villagers of Chakormal Panchayat was damaged and due to shortfall of production Govt. declared 42% crop damage.
The O.P. No.2 has already released the compensation amount to O.P. No.1.
As per rule, the complainant has to get Rs.38,000.00 as compensation for his crop loss. But, the O.P. No.1 has deposited an amount of Rs.9724/- in the S.B. account of the complainant. Inspite of several approaches the O.P. No.1 has not paid the rest amounts. Although the complainant applied under the R.T.I. Act regarding non payment of the rest amount, the O.P. No.1 has not supplied the required information. Hence the complainant has claimed the rest compensation amount be paid to him. He has also claimed Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation.
The O.Ps. were noticed in this case. Both the O.Ps. entered appearance through their advocate. The O.P. No.2 has filed version. Despite several opportunities the O.P. No.1 has not filed version. The O.P. No.2 has given a very detailed and exhaustive version.
The gist of his version is that the insurance for the crop is done unit wise and the branches of the Nodal Bank collects the premium from the cultivators of the concerned area and send a note of the same to the designated nodal office who in turn sends the consolidated declaration insurance unit wise and crop wise to this O.P. No information is supplied to the implementing agency on individual farmer.
This O.P. avers that the Nodal Bank in this case is Regional Manager, Utkal Grameen Bank Bolangir District Bolangir. This O.P. avers he has sent amount of claim to Regional Manager, Utkal Grameen Bank Bolangir District – Bolangir.
The scheme specifically contemplates a clause under special conditions for F/S Nodal Banks/Loan disbursing point. The relevant claim has been mentioned by the O.P. in the written version which is reproduced below.
“5 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 shall make good all such losses.”
-: 3 :-
This O.P. avers that he is implementing the insurance scheme as per the guidelines of the scheme. Hence this O.P. avers that the complaint petition against this O.P. may kindly be dismissed.
Although several opportunities was given to the parties to take part in the hearing, they have not participated in the hearing. Hence this case is being disposed of basing on the materials available on record.
The complainant has alleged that in the year 2011 the entire crops of the complainant and other villagers of Chakormal Panchayat was damaged and Govt. agency declared 42% crop damage in the Panchayat of the complainant.
He has also alleged that he is entitled to get Rs.38,000/- as compensation for his crop loss. But he has not filed any documentary evidence in support of this. In other words, there is no document on record to come to a conclusion that the entire crop of the complainant and others of Chhakormal Panchayat was damaged and Govt. has declared 42% crop damage.
Although sufficient opportunities was given to the complainant, neither he appeared nor participated in the hearing to substantiate his allegation. In the aforesaid premises we have no other option then to dismiss the complaint petition.
In the result, this complaint case is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.
Dated the 17th March 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.17.03.2017 Dt.17.03.2017 Dt.17.03.2017
