J U D G M E N T.

Fact of the case: -The complainant has filed this case against the OPs pray for compensation for realization value of crop damage after insured in the concerned Bank i.e. Sinapali Co-operative Bank, Sinapali Branch. He has deposited Rs.310 vide chalan No.83 on dated 28.07.2011 for 1(One) hector of land for the Kharif season 2011. He is also an account holder of the Bank vide A/c No.35916. The complainant filed in his petition. He is entitled for @150% insurance benefit for crop damage in Nilji Gram Panchayat under Sinapali Block. The petitioner has filed his affidavit along with listed documents but not the necessary documents.

     The OP No.1 Branch Manager Central Co-operative Bank, Sinapali Branch has filed his version and he has admitted that the complainant is account holders of his Bank having a SB Account and he has not denied. That the complainant has never deposited any premium amount in the Bank particularly, vide chalan No.83 dated 28.07.2011 towards crop insurance. If the complainant has not deposited any premium for crop insurance the proposal to insurance company does not arose so he has to proof of his deposit of premium in Bank. The complainant has filed this case by claiming in a take (false) chalan which was not issued by the Bank. The OP No.1 has filed his version along with verification.

     The OP No.2 has not filed by version. OP No-3 has filed his version. The Complainant in this case has filed this case lacking behind the relevant document for proof this case for compensation for crop insurance. He has neither submitted any original document not submitted any area shown certificate or proposal form approved by the concerned Bank even not clam exact amount of claims for which area only filed certain documents which need not proof this case.

               O R D E R.

The Hon’ble Forum has came to conclusion that the documents filed by the complainant is not any original one even clearly not mention any compensation amount for which area he has shown his crop which was damaged in the Kharif season 2011 and area shown certificate it is ambiguity the complainant has not proof this case. Hence this case is dismissed.