West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/142/2014

Sri Sujit Bhandari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, S.B.I. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Dec 2015

ORDER

                                                            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President, Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.142/2014

                                                        

                                          Sri Sujit Bhandari…………………………..….……Complainant.

Versus

1)Branch Manager, State Bank of India;

2)Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Co. India Ltd.

                                                             …………..…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant : Mr. Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

              For the O.P.                : Mr. Samir Kumar Ghosh, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 28/12/2015

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President - Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a small farmer and owner of 1 acor of land in his village.  He opened Kishan Credit card bearing account no.32111108901in his name in the bank of opposite party no.1 and he applied for cultivation loan in the year 2011-12 and the opposite party no.1 sanctioned cultivation loan of Rs.34,000/- on 30/12/2011 in favour of the complainant and the bank authority also received Rs.1649/- for potato insurance for the year 2011-12.  After cultivation, the complainant deposited Rs.40,300/- in his account as total loan amount with interest.  In the year 2011-12 major portion of potato cultivation was destroyed by various disease and after thorough investigation, report was submitted by proper authority and opposite party no.2 disbursed insurance benefit in the bank of opposite party no.1 within time but after receiving the insurance money from opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.1 did not disburse the insurance benefit in the loan account of the complainant.  Similarly, in the year 2013-14, the complainant received

Contd…………………P/2

 

 

 

 

( 2 )

cultivation loan of Rs.34,000/- from opposite party no.1 in the same account on 30/11/2013 and opposite party no.1 again received crop insurance of Rs.1649/- on 30/01/2014 from Kishan Credit account of the complainant.  Again major portion of the potato was damaged by various infections and other disease.  Proper authority again inquired in the matter and submitted report in the office of the opposite party no.2 who disbursed Insurance benefit in the office of opposite party no.1.  In spite of receiving insurance benefit, the opposite party no.1 intentionally did not adjust the insurance benefit in the account of the complainant and withheld the same.  The complainant and other cultivators of his area send written representation in the office of opposite party no.1 but the opposite party no.1 willfully withheld 60% of insurance benefit in the year 2011-12 and 2013-14.  Said act of the opposite party no.1 is deficiency in service on their part.  Hence  the complaint praying for directing the opposite party to pay insurance benefit for  the year 2011-12 and 2013-14 in the Kishan Credit card  account of the complainant and for other reliefs.

 Opposite party no.1- the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Khirpai Branch and the opposite party no.2 - Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Co. India Ltd. contested this case by filing two separate written objections.

 Denying and disputing the case of the complaint, it is the specific case of the opposite party no.1, as disclosed in their written objection, that after thorough investigation, State Agricultural Department made enquiry regarding damage of potato of the relevant area in the year 2011-12 and reported that no such damage occurred for getting insurance benefit for potato cultivation and no report regarding the year 2013-14 has yet been received.  Opposite party no.1 therefore claims dismissal of the complaint.

Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party no.2 that they settled the claim in accordance with the terms and provisions of the scheme and there was no deficiency in service on their part.  As per scheme and guideline of MNAIS, they have already paid the payable sum for the crop and therefore this opposite party is an unnecessary party.   It is further stated that as per formula, compensation figure for crop damages comes to nil for Manikkundu Gram Panchayet. In his petition of complaint, the complainant has not mentioned the name of his said Gram Panchayet.  Further according to the opposite party no.1, the petition of complaint contained vague statement and allegation and therefore the petition of complaint is liable to be rejected.

         Contd…………………P/3

 

 

 

 

 

( 3 )   

Point for decision

                      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                   

Decision with reasons

       In this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite party no.2 adduced any evidence but opposite party no.1 has examined one witness namely Sri Swapan Kumar Shardar, the Branch Manager of opposite party no.1 as OPW-1 and during his examination one document has been marked as 1- for identification. 

      Now let us considered as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for or not. 

    We have already stated that in this case complainant adduced no evidence.  Complainant also produced nothing to show that during the relevant year major portion of his potato cultivation was destroyed by various diseases and that his said land of cultivation was covered under Insurance scheme of the Government.  On the contrary, we find from a report dated 18/02/2015 issued by the Assistance Director of the Agricultural, Chandrakona-1 Block,  that Chandrakona -1 Block in which the  land of the complainant is situated was not benefited crop insurance of potato under MNAIS during the year 2011-12.  It was further reported by the said report dated 18/02/2015 that “ The Potato damaged field of  Sujit Bhandari (complainant) was investigated by the office of the under signed but there was no personal benefit of insurance under the rule of MNAIS (G.P) as a UNIT”.    Apart from that, we find from the written statement of opposite party no.2 that as per formula of the Government, compensation figure comes to NIL for Manikkundu Gram Panchayet.  Complainant produced no document to show that his land was covered under that insurance policy of the Government.

      In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we have no other alternative than to hold that the complainant has hopelessly failed to prove his case and he is therefore not entitled to get any relief,  as prayed for.

                                                   Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                                                       that the complaint case no.142/2014 is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

             Dictated & Corrected by me

                                

                           President                       Member                  Member                President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur