Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

              Complainant Bidyadhar Mishra has filed this case u/s 12 of the CP Act-1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties for non-payment of his crop insurance amount in spite of his repeated approaches and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to pay his crop insurance claim to the tune of Rs. 1, 00000/- (one Lakh only) and a sum of Rs. 2,00000 (two lakhs only) towards financial hardship and mental agony.

1.               Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant had insured his paddy crops with OP No. 2 and 3 on payment of Rs. 1500/- as premium for the Kharif year 2017 and the insured amount was Rs. 1,00000/- (One Lakh only). In the Kharif Year-2017, village Saraipalli was affected and the complainant did not receive his insurance claim in respect of damage even though the co-villagers availed their crop insurance. Since the insurance benefit was not released, he contacted the OPs time and again and as the OPs did not respond, he took the shelter of this Forum for the reliefs as discussed in the preceding paragraph.

2.               After receipt of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared and filed written statements separately.

3.               The OP No. 1 in his written statement stated that the complainant is an account holder of his Bank and he has insured his crops through UBI Nuapada Branch. A sum of Rs. 1500/- has been deducted from his SBI account on 31.07.2017 and sent to National Insurance Company i.e. OP No. 2 on 31.07.2017. The complainant was asked to submit the original ROR in respect of his plots and as he did not submit the original for verification, the account was closed. Village Saraipalli has never been assessed under Budhipalli GP in the year 2017. Therefore, the question of getting any insurance claim does not arise. As the OP No. 1 is acting as Post Office, he has no liability and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the case with cost.

4.               The OP Nos. 3 in his written statement stated that he is not the agency to insure the crops in Nuapada District. So, he is in no way responsible for non-payment of the dues of the complainant and he has not received the premium from the complainant. Therefore, the case against him be dismissed with costs.
5.  
5.               The OP No. 2 in his written statement stated that village Saraipalli does not come under Budhipalli GP. Budhipalli GP has never been declared as drought-affected in the Kharif year 2017 and as such the petitioner is not entitled for insurance claim within Budhipalli GP under Nuapada District. Since Budhipalli GP is not affected by drought, the complainant is not entitled for benefit and therefore, the complaint of the complainant be dismissed with cost.
6.  
6.               We have heard the parties and have perused the documents on record. There is nothing on record to show that village Saraipalli was affected due to drought in the Kharif year 2017. Even though the complainant pleads that the co-villagers of Saraipalli have availed their crop insurance benefits, their agricultural lands might be in some other village/Panchayat for which they have been paid the insurance claims. As the petitioner has failed to establish that the village Saraipalli has been declared as drought-affected in the Kharif year 2017, the case lacks merit and hence the order.

O R D E R

                             The complaint petition is dismissed on contest against the OPs.