JUDGEMENT

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

        Complainant Jagabandhu Bag has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for not paying his crop insurance benefit to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1.00000/- with interest with realization of crop insurance and pay a sum of Rs. 1,00000/- towards deficiency in service and harassment suffered by him.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is a farmer and he has got 1Ac. 01.950 cent of cultivable land pertaining to Khata No. 87 in Mouja Bisibahal in the district of Nuapada. The complainant had insured his crop in the Kharif Season-2017 by paying insurance premium of Rs. 844.44 through OP No. 4 to OP No. 2. On 31.07.2017 under Pradhan Mantri Phasal Bima Yojana-2017. The crops were damaged in the same year and accordingly, the farmers of Bisibahal have availed their crop insurance benefits. But, the complainant was not paid for which he contacted the Opposite Parties on different dates and as his grievance was not redressed, he filed this petition before this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
2.           After receipt of notice, OP No. 1, 3 and 4 appeared. But the OP No. 2 did not appear. So, he was set expartee and this Commission proceeded to dispose of the case on the basis of the documents and replies available on record.

3.           The OP No. 1 in his written statement stated that he was no way connected with the Insurance matter and it is the responsibility of OP No. 2, 3 and 4 to decide the claim of the complainant and release the compensation amount to the bank account. Till now, the Insurance Company has not deposited any compensation in his account. Since the OP No. 1 is not connected in any manner in the subject matter of the case, he prays for dismissal of the case against them.
4.           The OP No. 2 in his reply stated that they have already released an amount of Rs. 8761/- into the Farmers’ Account through ESCROW account to SBI, Komna vide UTR No. 278180155748167. This payment has been made as per State Government Notification. The petitioner is not entitled to get his claim for Rs. 1,00000/- with interest as it is not coming as per the notification of the State Government. Therefore, they claim for dismissal of the case with costs.

5.           The OP No. 3 in his reply stated that he is no way connected with OP No. 2. The OP No. 2 and 3 are two distinct and different companies. OP No. 3 has no link or connection with OP No. 2 and he was no in charge of Nuapada District. It was squarely vested on OP No. 2. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the case against him.

6.           The OP No. 4 stated in his written statement that he is running a service center and he had processed the insurance application of the complainant in the portal and he has no other role to play in the whole affairs.

7.           So, it is very much clear from the written statement of OP No. 2 that the amount of insurance has already been deposited in the ESCROW account of SBI towards the claim of the complainant. The complainant even after filing of this written statement by OP No. 2 has not raised any complaint regarding the amount paid by OP No. 2 for which we are of the opinion that the complainant is satisfied with the amount of compensation paid by the Insurance Company towards his loss of crop. The complainant has also not filed any document before this Commission to show the ratio of loss arising out of drought in the district and hence the order.

                                                                                                           ORDER

The complaint petition is disposed off with a direction to the OP No. 1 to transfer a sum of Rs. 8761/- to the account of the complainant which has been paid by the OP No. 2 through ESCROW account to SBI Komna vide UTR No. 278180155748167. Parties to bear their own cost.