Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member:-
Fact of the case:-
The Complainant is a farmer who wanted to take the benefit of the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) of the government to insure his crops for the year 2008. As per rules for paddy crop a farmer was required to deposit premium of Rs.1,218.29/-(Rupees one thousand two hundred eighteen and twenty nine paise)only per hector of land to cover the assured sum up to Rs.25,648/-(Rupees twenty five thousand six hundred forty eight)only small and marginal farmers holding land less than two hector are allowed 10%(ten percent) subsidy on the premium amount. Accordingly to get the benefit the Complainant submitted proposal with Opposite Party No.1(one) and deposited the premium Rs.2,436.58/-(Rupees two thousand four hundred thirty six and fifty eight paise)only from his Saving Bank Account No. 4737 on Dt.13/08/2008. Later when government declared crop damage of 54.7908% for Jharbandh Block and the Complainant learnt that crop insurance is being given to farmers he approached the Opposite Party Bank, but to his dismay he got information that his land is not been covered under the crop insurance scheme and after a long period of darkness almost after one year the premium Rs.2,436.58/-(Rupees two thousand four hundred thirty six and fifty eight paise)only was refunded to his Saving Bank Account on Dt.05/08/2009 and for the negligence of the Opposite Party present Complainant was not able to get the benefit and lost Rs.28,105/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand one hundred five)only would have been compensation for crop damage for his land. Hence this complaint praying Rs.28,105/-(Rupees twenty five thousand one hundred five)only the insurance benefit and another Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only for all the sufferings the experienced during this time.
Heard the counsels of the parties in great detail who submitted then causes respectively. Perused the record.
Complainant advocate submitted the grievance of the Complainant. Complainant also filed a xerox copy of Savings Bank Account No. 4737 to prove the debit and credit of the premium amount as per the claim.
Opposite Party No.1(one) filed its version on Dt.24/11/2011 and admitted some facts and denied many contentions of complaint petition. Opposite Party No.1(one) submitted that the relationship of the Complainant with the Opposite Party Bank is of creditor and debtor and the Complainant has not hired the Opposite Party Bank paying any consideration and thereby Complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Party Bank and this complaint is not maintainable. This contention of the Opposite Party Bank can not be accepted as it is well settled vide many cases that a loanee also comes under the category of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act.
The other contention of Opposite Party No.1(one) that this complaint not been maintainable because of application of Rule of Resjudicata is baseless and hence rejected.
Opposite Party No.1(one) also submitted that, people under different schemes of the government are not consumers hence this petition is not maintainable. Again the same issue has been already decided by the Hon'ble National Commission and Apex Court, that even beneficiaries schemes of the govt are treated as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act.
Opposite Party No.1(one) submitted that Complainant had submitted his insurance proposal as a non-loanee farmer but ever though the premium was deducted from his account, it could not be sent to Opposite Party No.2(two) lacking some documents which the Complainant did not submit ever after notice. The notice filed with the record shows that the other required documents are to be produced within three days and it was said to be attached in the Notice Board of the Bank. Here the Forum feels that, farmers are not daily visitors to the Bank and they inducible in agricultural activities so it is not possible for them to get the information till they indulge to the Bank or they are informed by post. The Opposite Party No.1(one) not took any steps to sand any letters not even a post card to inform the farmers to visit the Bank for further action, though the Bank was in a rush to debit the premium amounts on the date of issue of notice when all documents are not yet received. Now even if under the circumstances a farmer appears in the Bank and learns about the notice to collect the J.A.O. Certificate for filing case not be done in three days. Hence it is felt that the notice is just to avoid the responsibility and to the used as a plea in future.
Opposite Party No.1(one) filed attested copy of statement of State Bank Account No.4737 of the Complainant, non-loanee proposal form of Hemanta Kumar Nayak, the Complainant in this case and report of the R.I., Jharbandh regarding possession of land, all these documents are not disputed by the Complainant loanee need not be proved further.
Opposite Party No.1(one) also filed some other documents to substantiate his claim like.
(a) Letter of NABARD to Chairman UGB, Head Office, Bolanagir about implementation of the N.A.I.S.
(b) Instruction, circular of G.M., UGB, Heard Office for year -2007.
© Circular for year 2008 with Instruction and
(d) Notice both the Oriya and English language to all non-loanee farmers.
Again this documents are not disputed except the notice to non-loanee farmers which were alleged by the Complainant to have been manipulated ones.
Opposite Party No.2(two) filed its version on Dt.16/09/2011 showing his causes praying to exonerate Opposite Party No.2(two) from any charges as unless they are bound with a contract they are not liable to be any ligant of any kind. To substantiate their cause, Opposite Party No.2(two) filed documents like:-
N.A.I.S. Scheme.
Utilizations Certificate
and
Letter of AIC to Chairman UGB.
Here also the Complainant did not dispute the documents. However the documents filed by the Opposite Party No.2(two) further proves the under rush shown by Opposite Party Bank while deducting the premium from saving Account of the Complainant. As the N.A.I.S. filed by Opposite party No.2(two) shows the last cut-off date for non-loanee farmers to be 31th August and the Opposite Party No.1(one) could have either waited till one or two days prior to the last date to deduct the same or on the other hand should have returned the deducted premiums same after the cut-off date passed.
Opposite Party No.1(one) further relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1999 (3) CPR (SL) page 102 and it seems that the same is not a said fit for this case. The same happens to be with the other citation vide 1996 (CPR) page7(seven) Co-operative Primary Land Development Bank Ltd. -Vrs- Esakkimuttu Konar.
Opposite Party No.1(one) also contented that, he is not guilty for returning the deducted premium at a belated date because huge work is involved. This contention also is not accepted by the Forum as when the Opposite Party Bank was able to deduct the premium at a single date he was not able to return the same after dis-approval of the proposal.
Under the facts and circumstances the Forum opines that Opposite Party No.1(one) is negligent and liable for deficiency in service for keeping the Farmers/Complainant in dark for long and for those acts the Complainant sustained monetary loss for his crop not been insured.
However the Opposite Party No.2(two) is exonerated from any charges not been bound by any contract vide no documents as well as premium for the Complainant is referred to them and got accepted. But for a great humanitarian cause Opposite Party No.2(two) should show some more interest to wards this. So no case is left uncover for silly reasons.
Hence Ordered that :-
The Opposite Party No.1(one) to give 9% (nine percent) interest per annum, on the sum which was deducted as premium for the Complainant as a non-loanee farmer for the whole period (starting from deduction to returning of the same to the saving Bank of Account ).
Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand)only to the Complaisant as a compensation for the sufferings he received, and another Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only for litigation expenses within one month of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @18%(eighteen percent) per annum till the final realization of the awarded amount.
The Case is disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
agree, I agree, I agree, (Smt. Anjali Behera) ( Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
