Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/477

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARUN K. SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

SH.SURYAKANT BHUJADE

11 Jan 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

                   PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL                         

                                                                         

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 10.11.2016 passed in C.C.No.61/2016 by the District Commission, Harda)

 

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,

THROUGH MANAGER, BRANCH-HARDA

HARDA (M.P.)                                                                                                    …          APPELLANT.

 

             Versus    

            

1. ARUN KUMAR SHARMA,

    S/O SHRI MOOLCHAND SHARMA,

    R/O VILLAGE-UDA, TEHSIL-HARDA

    DISTRICT-HARDA (M.P.)

 

2. NATIONAL AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER,

    POLYTIC ELOVAS, FIRST FLOOR, NH-12,

    NEAR MAIDA MILL, HOSHANGABAD ROAD,

    BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                                              …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                     :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Suryakant Bhujade, learned counsel for the appellant. 

           Shri Naresh Chourasia, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

           Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.     

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 11.01.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

 

                         This appeal by the opposite party no.1-Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘bank’) is directed against the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Harda (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.61/2016, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint.

-2-

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of 1.821 hectares of agricultural land situated in patwari halka no.23 in village-Bahala, Tehsil-Timarni, District-Harda. The complainant is resident of Village-Uda Tehsil & District-Harda. The complainant’s KCC account is with bank. He had obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- regarding his Rabi crop from the bank in the year 2012-2013 and the crop was accordingly insured with the opposite party no.2-Agriculture Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company’) for the relevant year. It is alleged that he suffered loss in crop yield due to natural calamity in the year 2012. The complainant alleged negligence on part of the opposite parties stating that the insurance claim of the complainant was prepared on the basis of survey report of his place of residence when rest of the agriculturists of patwari halka no.23 received claim amount as per calculation. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service and negligence on part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3.                The bank in its reply before the District Commission denied the averments of the complainant that he did not receive the claim as per survey report due to negligence on bank’s part.  It is stated that the bank had timely intimated the insurance company about the discrepancy in details but the insurance company did not rectify the entry.  The insurance company is liable in the instant matter.

-3-

4.                The insurance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that as per the complainant, his agricultural land is situated in patwari halka no.23, Tehsil-Timarni, District-Harda.  It is submitted that a sum of Rs.58,383.66/- as crop insurance claim with regard to two eligible farmers has been sent to the bank. It is only the bank, who can verify, whether the complainant was eligible for compensation or not.  It is also submitted that the bank should have insured the complainant’s crop, accordingly, if the same is situated in Village-Bahala, Tehsil-Timarni, District-Harda.  The bank however, insured his crop in different patwari halka number and due to this the complainant was deprived of benefits of the scheme.  It is therefore prayed that the complaint against the insurance company be dismissed.

5.                The District Commission partly allowing the complaint and directed the bank to pay crop insurance claim for Rabi crop for the year 2012-2013 to the complainant on the basis of loss of crop yield in Village-Bahala, patwari halka no.23, within a period of 30 days and directed that the same be reimbursed by the insurance company. In addition compensation of Rs.2,000/-, along with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded. Hence this appeal.

6.                Heard.

 

-4-

7.                Learned counsel for the appellant bank argued that the bank had only sent the premium amount to the insurance company regarding crop insurance, from the account of the farmers having KCC accounts. If there has been any discrepancy in payment of crop insurance claim, the insurance company is liable for that.  The bank had provided relevant information, in accordance with the declaration provided by the complainant.  Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.1 on the other hand supported the impugned order and argued that the District Commission has rightly allowed the complainant.

9.                Learned counsel for the respondent no.2-insurance company argued that the insurance company had specifically mentioned that the amount has been given by it, to be paid to the eligible farmers. If the complainant’s crop insurance is done in different patwari halka number, only the bank is responsible.  The insurance company disburses claim amount on the basis of information given by the bank.

10.              Short question for decision before us is whether the opposite parties are responsible in the instant case, where the complainant could not receive benefits of the agricultural insurance scheme. The complainant has specifically mentioned that he has agricultural land situated in patwari halka no. 23 at Village-Bahala, Tehsil-Timarni, District-Harda and he is the

-5-

resident of Village-Uda.  The bank had insured his crop at his residence i.e. Village-Uda, in place of Village-Bahala, patwari halka no.23 where his agricultural land is actually situated. This fact is further confirmed from letter dated 15.10.2015 (annexed as ‘Exhibit C-1’ in the record) from Branch Manager, Central Bank of India to Operating Department, Regional Office, Bhopal, whereby the bank has stated that upon realizing the aforesaid mistake, the bank had resent the rectified declaration form to the insurance company.

11.              The Scheme and Guidelines of the ‘National Agricultural Insurance Scheme’ under the heading of “Special Conditions For FIs/Nodal Banks/Loan Disbursing Points” which is at Page 19-20 of the Scheme provides thus:

SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR FIs/NODAL BANKS/LOAN DISBURSING POINTS:

1…

2….

3….

4….

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 only shall make good all such losses.

 

12.              Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, we find that the District Commission has committed no illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order and the same is hereby upheld.

13.              As a result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (S. S.BANSAL) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                      

                  PRESIDENT                           MEMBER              MEMBER