DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No.1 of 2013
Saroj Kumar Dang, S/o. Ram Chandra Dang, aged about 23 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.26.04.2017
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.P.
The case of the complainant is that he is recorded tenant of khata No.91 of Mouza – Majhimunda comprising Ac.3.466 dec. of land. As per insurance scheme of Govt. the O.P. No.1 was to collect premium from farmers and send it to O.P. No.2 through nodal agency in proper format giving detailed data. In case of crop failure the O.P. No.2 has to indemnify the loss with reference to area of insured and amount has to be paid to O.P. No.1 through its nodal agency and O.P. No.1 will disburse the amount to the cultivators.
During Khariff season of 2011 the complainant availed agricultural loan of Rs.43,000/- from bank of O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.1 deducted insurance premium amount from the complainant. It is alleged that in the same year the entire crops of the complainant and other villagers of Rengali Panchayat was damaged and government declared 79.33% 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.33500/- but the O.P. No.1 has deposited Rs.18,904/- in the S.B. Account of the complainant, despite several approaches the O.P. No.1 has not disbursed the rest amount to the complainant. Hence the complainant has prayed that the O.P. No.1 be directed to pay the rest amount of Rs.16,516/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.40,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation.
The O.P. No.1 though entered appearance through advocate had not filed written version. The O.P. No.2 has given a detailed version. According to this O.P. there was crop damage in Rengali Panchayat upto the extent of 79.93%. According to this O.P. he has not received any premium from the nodal bank for Rengali G.P. of Sonepur Block of Subarnapur District for paddy crop under NAIS Kharif 2011 season.
This O.P. avers that the total amount of claims under NAIS Kharif for 2011 season has been sent to Nodal Bank i.e. U.G.B. Regional Office Bolangir on dt.10.08.2012. This O.P. relies on the N.A.I.S. provision in operational modalities. Para No.9 of the same is reproduced below :-
“ 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.
The O.P. No.1 and 2 remained absent during hearing. We have heard Mr.R.Agrawal for the complainant and this case is being disposed upon examination of the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant. We have also perused the documents on record.
The O.P. No.2 has admitted in his version that there was 79.33% crop damage in Rengali Panchayat. So this can be treated as an admission U/s.18 of the Indian Evidence Act. A thing admitted need not be proved. This O.P. avers that he has not received any premium from the Nodal Bank for Rengali G.P. of Sonepur Block of Subarnapur District.
-: 3 :-
The O.P. No.1 has neither filed any version nor appeared before us to explain the above mentioned matter. So there has been deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No.1. So we direct the said O.P. to pay the compensation amount of Rs.16516/- to the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the complainant is also entitled to Rs.3000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service, Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation. We direct the O.P. No.1 to pay the said amount to the complainant. We order accordingly.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered as follows – The O.P. No.1 is directed to pay Rs.21516/- to the complainant within one month from the date of order.
Dated the 26th April 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.26.04.2017 Dt.26.04.2017 Dt.26.04.2017
