Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

  Complainant Gokul Sabar has filed this case u/s 12 of the CP Act-1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for non-payment of his compensation amount proportionate to his actual loss praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 44, 000/- towards his crop insurance benefit and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards deficiency and harassment. 

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is an account holder of State Bank of India, Nuapada Branch bearing account No. 36697644923. The complainant had insured his paddy crops in village Kasipala for the Kharif Season-2017 by paying insurance premium of Rs. 920/-. The paddy crops of village Kasipala under Palsipani GP were affected in Kharif Season-2017 and the co-villagers availed their insurance benefits. The insurance company i.e. OP No. 2 paid a sum of Rs. 23244/- on 25.08.2018 towards loss of crop which was credited in the bank account of the complainant. As per the actual loss, he is entitled to get Rs. 44,000/- for which he lodged complaint before the OPs. But as his grievance was not redressed, he approached this Forum for the reliefs as discussed above.

2.           After receipt of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared and filed their written statements. The OP No. 1 in his written statement stated that the complainant is an account holder of his bank and has insured his crops. The insurance company is the authority to decide how much amount will be paid to the beneficiary. The bank is just like a Post Office and he has got nothing to do regarding the payment of insurance claim. Bank has no authority to ask any insurance company to enhance the claim of any person. So, the allegation made against him is completely baseless and be dismissed with cost.

3.           The OP No. 2 in his written version stated that the data available in the PMFBI Portal is the basis on which the insurance companies carry out premium reconciliation and claims calculation. The said data is entered in the portal by the banks or CSC or the farmers directly. Insurance company is not the custodian of those data. The complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 23,244/- which has been paid to him on 25.08.2018 through his SBI (ADB), Nuapada account. The complainant is not entitled for further compensation. On verification of uploaded portal data by the bank, the insured plot is under Kurumpuri insurance unit. Kurumpuri GP is under Komna Block in Nuapada District. So, he has been paid accordingly. Now the complainant cannot claim enhanced rate without rectifying the record on portal data i.e. from Kurumpari Unit to Palsipani unit. So, there is no deficiency on his part and therefore he prays for dismissal of the case against him.

4.           It is clear from the written statement of OP No. 2 that the data of the farmer is uploaded by the bank and on verification of the uploaded portal data by the bank, the insured plot is under Kurumpari insurance unit, Kurumpari. On perusal of record, it is seen that the lands insured by the farmer belongs to Kalipala. Because of wrong entry of data in the portal by the bank, the complainant could not avail the compensation from the insurance unit in proportion to the loss sustained by him. The bank while uploading the data very carelessly mentioned the insurance to be in Kurumpari instead of Kasipala. Because of this carelessness, the complainant has suffered a lot and he could not get his actual compensation by the insurance company. As the complainant suffered due to negligence of the bank, he is liable to compensate the petitioner.

5.           The complainant has pleaded that he is entitled to get insurance of Rs. 44,000/-. He has received a sum of Rs. 23,344/- from the insurance company and he is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 20,756/- towards his loss. The amount of compensation of Rs. 44,000/- as claimed by the complainant is not dispute by any of the Opposite Parties. Therefore, complainant is entitled to get Rs. 20,756/- from OP No. 1 and hence the order.

O R D E R

                   The complaint petition is allowed on contest against OP No. 1 and dismissed against OP No. 2 and 3. The OP No. 1 is made liable for deficiency in service and causing harassment to the complainant. The OP No. 1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,756/- to the complainant towards the differential amount of the insurance claim with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 25.08.2018 till it is actually paid to the complainant. The OP No. 1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation towards deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of order failing which the order of cost and compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till it is actually paid to the complainant.