Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.  

Complainant Chaitanasingh Majhi has filed this case u/s 12 of CP Act-1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for not paying his insurance claim to him in spite of the insurance premium paid to them praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the crop insurance benefit of Rs. 1,30,000/- with penal interest along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on different heads.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant has insured his paddy crops over the agricultural land in village Chulabhat recorded in his name under Khatian No. 235/88 and 235/82 for the Kharif Season-2017 for which he has paid the insurance premium of Rs. 1000 to OP No. 4 who happens to be the Insurance Company on 01.07.2017 vide Cheque No. 302516. The state of Odisha declared village Chulabhat in Nuapada District to be drought affected and accordingly, the other villagers have availed their crop insurance benefit. But even though the complainant has paid the premium, his insurance benefit was not paid and he requested the OP No. 1, 2 and 3 time and again to take necessary action for realization of appropriate insurance benefit. He is entitled to get crop insurance benefit to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. But, the OPs have caused harassment to him for which he has filed this case before the Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
2.           After receipt of notice, the OP No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 appeared through their Advocates. In spite of repeated adjournments granted to the OPs none of the OPs filed written statements nor challenged the allegations raised against them in any manner. So, the forum proceeded to dispose of the case on its own merit.
3.           The complainant in support of this case has filed the copy of the ROR in Khata No. 235/88 and 235/82, copy of his Adhar card, copy of the Kishan Credit Card in support of his case. It is seen from the Passbook that a sum of Rs. 1000/- has been debited from his account towards the insurance premium.
4.           It is settled principle of law that where the OPs appeared but did not challenge the allegations raised against them, it is deemed to have been admitted by them. In the instant case, the OPs appeared through their Advocates but did not challenge the allegations raised against them and the claims made against them in any manner. So, we come to the conclusion that the claim of the complainant is well admitted by the OPs.
5.           Since the premium has been paid to OP No. 4, he is squarely responsible for non-payment of the insurance claim to the complainant and is liable to pay the insurance claim of the complainant. Since the OP No. 4 received the premium but did not pay the dues thereby caused deficiency and harassment to the complainant and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the OP No. 4 and dismissed against OP No. 1, 2 and 3. The OP No. 4 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the complainant towards the insurance benefit arising out of loss of crop with interest @ 10% per annum from 01.01.2018 till it is actually paid to the complainant. The OP No. 4 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only towards compensation for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order failing which interest @ 12% shall be charged on the amount of cost and compensation from the date of order till its compliance.