Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.  

Complainant Rameswar Chandrakar 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. 1,92,600/- with interest along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- 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 Birumal recorded in his name under Khatian No. 485 and 487 for the Kharif Season-2017 for which he has paid the insurance premium of Rs. 3,863.80p to OP No. 2 who happens to be the authorized agent of OP No. 3 on 30.07.2017 vide transaction No. JSBI5537394992. The State of Odisha declared village Birumal 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 time and again to take necessary action for realization of appropriate insurance benefit. He is entitled to crop insurance benefit to the tune of Rs. 1,92,600/-. 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 appeared and filed his written statement. In his written statement, the OP No. 1 stated that the complainant has not deposited his premium through the bank for which he has got nothing to do with the crop insurance benefit of the complainant and pray for dismissal of the complaint petition.
3.           The OP No. 3 in his written statement stated that he is not the Insurance Company for Nuapada District and National Insurance Company is the authorized company to insure the crops of the farmers in Nuapada. So, he has nothing to do in this case and he has been unnecessarily impleded as a party in this case for which he prays for dismissal of the case against him.
4.           The OP No. 2 even though appeared in this case through his Advocate, he preferred not to file written statement nor challenged the allegations against him in any manner.
5.           The OP No. 4 did not appear in spite of notice served on him.
6.           The complainant in support of this case has filed the copy of his passbook in Central Bank of India, copy of the ROR pertaining to Khata No. 485 and 487 of Mauza Birumal, copy of the receipt showing payment of insurance premium to National Insurance Company Ltd. and copy of his Adhar card. Other Ops have not filed any document in support of their cases. None of the parties have led oral evidence in support of their cases.
7.           The only point for adjudication in this case is whether the Opposite Parties have caused deficiency in service to the complainant by not paying his insurance benefits in spite of payment of the premium.
8.           It is seen from the documents on record that the complainant on 30.07.2017 has paid a sum of Rs. 3,863.80p to National Insurance Company Ltd. Vide transaction No. JSBI5537394992 for insuring his paddy crops under Khata No. 485 and 487 in village Birumal for an insurance benefit of Rs. 1,92,600/-. in the event of loss of crop vide application No. 1016982001. So, it is very much clear from the money receipt that the complainant had insured his crops with OP No. 2 for Rs. 1,92,600/- by paying the premium amount of Rs. 3,863.80p on 30.07.2017. It is pleaded by the complainant that the other villagers who had made crop insurance in the same village have received their insurance benefits which is not disputed by the OP No. 2 in any manner. It is settled principle of law that where the OP appears but does not raise any objection to the allegations against him, it is deemed to have been admitted by him. In the present case, the Opposite Party No. 2 appeared through his advocate but did not challenge the allegations raised against him in any manner for which it is deemed that he has admitted the allegations raised by the complainant.
9.           It is very much clear from the discussion in the preceding paragraphs that the complainant has been unnecessarily harassed by the OP No. 2 as his genuine claim has not been paid by him which amounts to deficiency in service and non-payment of insurance claim in time to a poor farmer has caused much hardship for him.
10.           As a case of deficiency in service coupled with harassment is made out against OP No. 2 he is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and harassment sustained by him and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the OP No. 2 and dismissed against other OPs on contest. The OP No. 2 is made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The OP No. 2 is directed to pay the insured amount as per the proportion of loss of crop by the Government with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of loss of crop till it is actually paid to the complainant. The OP No. 2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only towards compensation for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of order failing which the order as to cost and compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till it’s compliance.