Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara,President.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated Bolangir the 30th day of March 2015.
C.C.No. 70 of 2012.
Prafulla Kumar Naik, age-44 years son of Bishnuram Naik.
Resident of village- Bandhapalia P.O.Upperjhar, P.S.Tusura,
District- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Central Bank of India, Bolangir Branch, office situated at
Paradise Palace, Daily Market Road, Bolangir Town,
P.O/P.S/Dist-Bolangir, represented through it’s Branch Manager.
2.The State of Odisha, represented through Collector, Bolangir,
At/P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
3.Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. Regional Office
At-Bhubaneswar, Plot No.87,Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar-7.
4.Branc Manager, Central Bank of India, Lathor Branch,
At/P.O-Lathor, Dist-Bolangir, represented through it’s
Branch Manager. .. .. Opp.Parties.
Advocate for the complainant- None.
Adv.for O.Ps No.1 - None.
Adv.for the O.P.No.2 - Sri N.K.Tripathy. G.P.
Adv.for the O.P.No.3 - Sri S.K.Hota & K.C.Hota.
Adv.for the O.P.No.4 - Sri B.C.Pradhan & Associates.
Date of filing of the case – 20.11.2012
Date of order of the case – 30.03.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
In the matter of an application u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986,filed by the complainant against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service.
2. The complainant named Prafulla Kumar Naik of village Bandhapalia is a loanee (KCC) farmer made option to be insured for NAIS scheme as his land is coming under drought prone areas during the year 2011-2012 and cultivated paddy in the area of Ac 2.30 dec. out of 5.60 dec. Accordingly under account No.312855522 has deposited Rs 1,103/- as the premium as advised on dated 18.07.2011 along with proposal form and land records.
3. The complainant averred during the said period his Gram Panchayat, Makundapur that covers claimant’s village –Bandhapali was declared drought effected and the crop loss was declared above 50% during the khariff season vide notification 29th February 2012, No. IVF (Crop)- 104/2011-8443/R & DM, covering total 1783 villages.
4. Post loss declared by the Govt., the complaint be eligible to claim amount because of crop loss, but although the Gram Panchay at as unit declared crop damage due to drought loss as 89% and per acre the complainant is entitled to Rs 13,350/-,in total and also is entitled to get at least Rs 74,000/- from the O.Ps. The insurer has intimated that the loss consideration has not considered by O.P.3,so finding no other alternative constrained to take shelter of this forum for settlement of his claim praying compensation and interest. Relied on Bank account photo copy, Revenue receipt, R.O.R.,R.T.I. information copy and affidavit.
5. On notice, the O.Ps appeared and filed their version contending as follows:-
6. The O.P.1 and O.P.No.4 admittedly averred, the complainant is non-loan farmer and deposited the insurance premium Rs 1,103/- towards the NAIS, non-loanee farmer guidelines. On dated 18.08.2011,the bank draft was prepared favouring Agricultural Insurance Co. of India Ltd. and on the very day the bank draft amount to Rs 3,35,683/- was sent. It is presumed that the above mentioned demand draft had been received in due course by AIC. It is false that the complainant has been debarred to get benefit of the Insurance scheme. The answering O.P branches are entrusted with the job transmitting the premium amount of the claimants in time, accordingly the bank draft in favour of agricultural insurance Co. of India much before the stipulated time. It is a matter of dispute or controversy between the Insurance Company and the complainant so the complaint petition is not maintainable. The complainant has submitted a defective form with improper and unambiguous address which has not merit and dismissed with cost. Relied on bank draft photo copy, draft despatchment schedule.
7. The O.P.2 is not a commercial organization and has not paid any consideration amount to render any service as such there is no cause of action. So the case is not maintainable. It is also submitted that for the cultivation year 2011-2012 the crop damage percentage was calculated holding the gram Panchayat as an unit and accordingly crop loss was prepared by the Government. The petition is not within the knowledge of the answering O.P. It is also false to say the complainant has requested the O.P to consider his insurance claim. There is no deficiency of service committed at the O.P.2 end.
8. The O.P.3 is a company implementing Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana on behalf of Central Government and the State Government RKBY scheme of the Government, the compensation is on “Area Approach” basis which means if G.P is an unit then all the farmers of that unit would receive compensation whether individually affected or not. The declaration submitted by nodal banks insurance unit-wise and crop-wise alone serves as the basis as per the scheme for computation of claims. No information on individual farmer is supplied to the implementing agency. The claim is disbursed to the nodal banks which in turn disburse the same to the branches who had collected premium and credit the same to the account of respective insured cultivators. Further submitting, B.M, Central Bank of India, at Lathore, P.O/Via-Harishankar Road, Dist-Bolangir. The nodal bank alone can confirm participation of the complainants in the scheme. No communication has received by the said bank to our letter dated 20.01.2013 on the petitioner on availed crop loan, season and remittance of premium and the G.P of Bolangir district although the O.P has disbursed large amount in implementing RKBY scheme, no deficiency of service has committed at our end. Rather the case needs dismissal.
9. Heard the complainant and learned counsel of O.Ps at length, gone through the record and materials at hand.
10. Perused the document, it is observed, the complainant in deposit of the premium amount to Rs 1,103/- against the NAIS non-loanee farmers scheme is a bonafide consumer. The sum insured is Rs 50.000/- against Ac 2.30 dec.of land of the complainant. The O.P.1 has remitted a bank draft containing Rs 3,35,683/- on dated 18.08.2011 which does not mean that the complainant’s insured premium has been dispatched rather it is admitted on dated 24.01.2013,although O.P.1 has received the non-loanee NAIS premium and remitted/dispatched the amount to the Lathore branch office, which did not deposit the premium amount to NAIS Co. Ltd under RKBY scheme being the nodal branch be made party and submit the satisfaction information. We find the central Bank of India is one legal entity. There is cannot be branch wise liability the entity is always responsible. The admission imply speaks fault, negligence and manner of performance is committed at branch end.
11, On the other side, the complainant should not suffer for the latches of the bank.
12. The Sspecial conditions for FIs/Nodal Banks/Loan Disbursing Points, clause-6 says “In case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the Scheme due to errors/omissions/commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACS, the concerned institutions only shall make good all such losses.
13. Further the guideline under clause-19 speaks:-
Whenever any clarification in respect of Declaration submitted by FIs is sought by AIC, the same must be submitted within two weeks. Thereafter, AIC is not under obligation to accept the same, including reopening of claims .Declarations received after the prescribed cut-off dates will be rejected and the responsibility/liability for such proposals rests with the nodal banks/FIs.
14. So in view of the above noted observation we considerable come to conclusion the O.Ps 1 and 4, both are jointly and severally liable for the negligence, for not getting the loss as declared.
15. The information on the face of the record speaks, the insured value is Rs 50,000/- for Ac 2.30 hectors and premium paid Rs 1,103/- for non-loan farmer against account bearing No.3128555833 and the sustained loss comes to Rs 49,285/- (Rupees Forty nine thousand two hundred eighty five) @ 8,801/- per acre, as it considered.
Hence ordered;
We hereby direct O.Ps 1 and 4 jointly and severally liable to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs 49,285/- (Rupees Forty nine thousand two hundred eighty five) as compensation for loss, harassment and mental agony sustained along with Rs 200/-( Rupees (two hundred) towards litigation expenses incurred within 45 days of this order, failing which interest @ 9% per annum will accrue from the date of application till realization.
(ii) We do not find any negligence at O.Ps.2 and 3 end.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2015.
I agree.
( S.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
