Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, President

The Complainant Khagapati Meher has filed this case u/s 12 of the CP Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp.parties for non-payment of his insurance claim in spites of payment of the premium and praying therein for direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation in different heads and the insurance claim @ 150 % applicable to Makhapadar G.P.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is a cultivator by profession he insured his crops with the OP No.2 through OP No.1 on payment of premium of Rs. 685/- on dated 13.09.2011. Even though his crop was damaged the opposite parties didn’t pay the insurance claim for which he has taken the shelter of this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.  

2.           After issue of notice both the OPs appeared through their respective Advocates and file their written version.

3.           The OP No.1 in his written version pleaded that the premium amount of the complainant along with others non-loanee category of Khariff 2011 was  submitted to the OP No.1 through their Nodal Branch SBI, Bhawanipatna vide DD No.209072387 dated 16.09.2011 he submitted claim for Rs. 27,794,750/- after crop  failure where as the OP No.2 paid a sum of Rs.26,076,237/-  therefore there is shortfall in payment of the insurance claim amount to the insured farmers. So he has no fault and he is no way responsible for non-payment of the dues of the complainant as he  has  remitted the premium in time  and the case against him be dismissed with costs.

4.           The OP No.2 in his written statement has stated that as per the assessment of loss declared by the competent authority taking different factors into the consideration the loss of any area is calculated and is paid to the Nodal Bank as no information is supplied to the implementing agency regarding individual farmers. The declaration submitted by Nodal Banks insurance unit wise and crop wise alone serve as the basis as per the scheme for computation of claims in the present case they have  sent an amount of Rs.31,84,44325.25 on the 10.08.12 through  Cheque No. 471175 to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bhawanipatna out of which Rs.35,60,675.43 for Makhapadar G.P. of Sinapali Block for 100 nos of non-loanee members from whose premium was received from Kharif 2011 season. Therefore they have no negligence or deficiency of service on their part.

5.           The complainant in support of his case has filed copy of his Voter ID, copy of his Passbook in Sinapali ADB. Branch. On the other hand the OP No.1 has filed a statement dt.16.09.2011 copy of the letter dated 21.09.2013 of Branch Manager, Sinapali ADB  (SBI) to Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, copy of the loanee details, copy of the letter of OP No.1 address to OP No.2 , copy of the letter dated 10.08.2012 of OP to address to SBI, Bhawanipatna, copy of the calculation sheet of loss of the complainant and has filed  copy of the list of on settled claims, copy of the letter dated 13.10.2012 address to the OP No.2 and copy of the payment details made to the insured farmers.

          OP No.2 has filed the copy of the letter No.4132 dated 13.03.2009 of Govt. of Odisha, Co-operation Department to him, copy of the letter No.3071 dated 15.03.2010, of Co-operation Department addressed to OP No.2, copy of Joint Director Economics & Statistics, Odisha , Bhubaneswar bearing no.2856 addressed to OP No.2 on 12.03.2010, copy of the yield report for the year 2009-10 and 2011 and 2011-12.

6.           The case was finally heard in the District Forum and the Judgment was delivered on 06.03.14. The OP No.1 being aggrieved by the order of this Forum preferred appeal vide FA No.262 of 2014 and the Hon’ble SCDRC was pleased enough to remand the matters to this Commission for denovo hearing and disposal of the case in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order by passing an speaking order. Even though parties to this case appeared the matter could not be taken up due to lack of quorum in this Commission and the case has been taken up after joining of the President and Member in this Commission.

7.           In face of pleadings and counter pleadings it is to be ascertained whether the OP No.1 or 2 is liable for non-payment of the dues of the complainant.

8.           It is seen from the documents on record and is also admitted by the OP No.1 that the complainant has paid the premium for insurance. It is also admitted by both the OPs that the complainant is entitled to get his insured amount for crop failure. Only   point for adjudication is that who will pay the insured amount for loss of crop ?

9.           The OP No.2 in his written statement has stated that he has sent an amount of RS.31,84,44,324.25 on 10.08.2012 through Cheque No. 471175 to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bhawanipatna out of which Rs. 35,60,675.43 is for Gandhabahli G.P. of Sinapali Block for 100 number of non-loanee members.

          On the other hand the OP No.1 in his written statement has stated that he has received a sum of Rs.2,60,76,237/- towards claim settlement of insured farmers from OP No.2 company where as the actual claim is Rs.2,77,94,750/-. Therefore due to short  receipt of claim fund the insurance claim of the complainant has not been paid.

10.           On perusal of record it is seen that the OP No.1 vide his letter No.BR/Gen/21 dt.21.06.2013 has sent a letter to OP No.2 stating therein that due to non receipt of Rs.2,77,94,750/- as required for insurance claim it has remained unpaid and as required by OP No.2 the detailed list of beneficiaries have been enclosed with that letter. The OP No.1  has filed a detailed statement of beneficiaries who have received the insurance claim amount out of the Rs.2,60,76,237/- in Sinapali G.P. This fact is supported by the evidence of OP No.1 filed in shape of affidavit. The evidence led by the OP No.1 is not challenged by the OP No.2 in any manner. So the evidence adduced and produced by OP No.1 remains uncontroverted, unchallenged and unrebutted.

11.           From the discussions above it is clear that the OP No.2 has made less payment amount Rs.17,00000/- (seventeen lakhs) only to be paid to the farmers of Sinapali G.P. for which they have not been paid their claims. If the OP No.2 would have responded to the letter No.BR/GEN/21, dt.21.06.2013 of OP No. 1 this problem could have been solved easily but the callour attitude of the OP No.2 has resulted in harassment to the insured farmers. The OP No.2 has no where denied that this amount is either  not payable to the farmers or that it has been paid to the Bank of OP No.1 for  disbursement to the farmer in compliance of the letter No.BR/Gen/21 dt. 21.06.2013. In the absence of both we come to the conclusion that due to non-payment of the dues by OP No.2 to OP No.1 he could not pay the insured amount to the farmers in time there by forcing the complainant to enter into a litigation.

12.           The case was filed in the year 2013 the judgment and order of which was pronounced in the year 2014 (06.03.2014). Thereafter an appeal was preferred by OP No.1 challenging the DCDRF order vide F.A No.262/2014 which was disposed off an 29.11.2021.  The complainant spend a lot of money and wasted lot of times to get his genuine claim for the fault of OP No.2

13.           The Bank i.e. OP No.1 has assessed the loss of crop of the complainant to be of Rs.7,907/- .The complainant as well as the OP No.2 has not raised any objection on the loss amount as assessed by the OP No.1. So this is treated as the loss amount for the loss of crop.

14.           As a case of deficiency in service coupled with harassment is clearly made out against the OP No.2 he is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and harassment meted out to him and hence the order.

O R D E R

The Complaint petition is allowed on contest against OP No.2 and dismissed against OP No.1. 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 a sum of Rs.7,907/-( Rupees Seven  thousand nine  hundred seven) only to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum with compound interest to be compounded annually from the date of filing of the case i.e. 21.03.2013 till it is paid to the complainant. The OP No.2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-( Rupees Twenty five thousand) only  towards compensation and harassment to the complainant and a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand ) only  towards cost as litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt   of the order, failing which interest @ 12% shall be charged on the cost and compensation as awarded.