| First Appeal No. FA/798/2014 | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 23/04/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/12/2012 of District Alipurduar) |
| | | | 1. Branch Manager, Central Bank of India | | Head Office-Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point & Branch -Samukhtala Br., P.O.-Sanatalpur, P.S. Samukhtala, Dist. Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. | | 2. Regional Manager, Central Bank of India | | Merchant Road, Jalpaiguri, P.S. - Kotwali, Dist. Jalpaiguri. | | 3. The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India | | Represented by its Regional Manager, Kolkata - 700 071. |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Jyotindra Mallick | | S/o Lt. Brajabasi Mallick, Samukhtala Branch, P.O. Santalpur, P.S. Samukhtala, Dist. Jalpaiguri. | | 2. Haridas Debnath | | S/o Late Brojendra Debnath, Vill. Patatola, P.O. Kadampur, via Santalpur, P.S. Samukhtala, Dist. Jalpaiguri. | | 3. Madan Debnath | | S/o Late Aswini Kr. Debnath, Samukhtala, P.O. Santalpur, P.S. Samukhtala, Dist. Jalpaiguri. | | 4. Bhupendra Das | | S/o Sudhangshu Das, Vill. Patatola, P.O. Kadampur, via Santalpur, P.S. Samukhtala, Dist. Jalpaiguri. | | 5. Sanjay Debnath | | S/o Sri Santosh Debnath, Vill. Patatola, P.O. Kadampur, via Santalpur, P.S. Samukhtala, Dist. Jalpaiguri. | | 6. Tarun Baran Das | | S/o Lt. Ananta Bijay Das, Samukhtala Bidhan Nagar, P.O. Santalpur, P.S. Samukhtala, Dist. Jalpaiguri. | | 7. Bimal Ch. Das | | S/o Sri Gopal Ch. Das, Samukhtala Bausty, P.O. Santalpur, P.S. Samukhtala, Dist. Jalpaiguri. | | 8. Narayan Debnath | | S/o Sri Radha Charan Debnath, Samukhtala Bidhan Nagar, P.O. Santalpur, P.S. Samukhtala, Dist. Jalpaiguri. | | 9. The Chairman and Managing Director, Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. | | 13th & 21st floor, 'Ambardeep', 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001. | | 10. The Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Co. of India Ltd. | | Kolkata Regional Office, QM Tower, 5th floor, 32, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata - 700 071. | | 11. The Agricultural Development Officer | | Alipurduar-II Block, P.O. -Alipurduar, P.S. - Alipurduar, Dist. Jalpaiguri. | | 12. The Krishi Prayukti Sahayak (KPS) | | Samukhtala G.P., Alipurduar - II Block, P.O. Santalpur, P.S. Samukhtala, Dist. Jalpaiguri. | | 13. The Block Development Officer | | Alipurduar - II Block, P.O. - Alipurduar, P.S. Alipurduar, Dist. Jalpaiguri. |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| For the Appellant: | Mr. Bishwambher Jha , Advocate | | For the Respondent: | Mr. Ved Sharma, Advocate | | | Mr. Ved Sharma , Advocate | | | Mr. Ved Sharma , Advocate | | | Mr. Ved Sharma , Advocate | | | Mr. Ved Sharma , Advocate | | | Mr. Ved Sharma , Advocate | | | Mr. Ved Sharma , Advocate | | | Mr. Ved Sharma , Advocate | | | Mr. Sayak Majumder, Advocate | | | Mr. Sayak Majumder, Advocate | |
| Final Order / Judgement | Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member Aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the order dated 23-04-2014 of the Ld. District Forum, Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench at Alipurduar in C.C. No. 12/2012,whereof the complaint has been allowed, this Appeal is moved by OP Nos.3 to 5 of the complaint case. Case of the Complainants, in short, is that although they suffered huge loss of cultivation due to severe winter in the area and also due to some unknown disease of potato crop, the OPs did not indemnify such loss under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme [Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana]. Hence, the complaint. Counter case of the OP Nos.3 to 5 is that as there was no shortfall of yield, the Agricultural Insurance Co. did not pay any amount to the OP No. 5. As such, these OPs have no liability to settle the claim of the Complainants. Decision with reasons Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides and perused the material on record. It appears from the impugned order that the Ld. District Forum was fully in agreement with the contention of the Appellants that there was no shortfall in respect of crop yield. The Ld. District Forum further appreciated the fact that the Respondents/Complainants did not make any effort whatsoever to get the damaged potato examined by any expert/test house/laboratory to ascertain the cause of alleged disease and extent of damage. Despite this, it allowed the complaint on the ground that at the time of argument or in writing, the Appellants, or for that matter any other OPs did not called in question the happening of disease in respect of potato crop. We afraid, the argument as put forth by the Ld. District Forum cannot be a cogent ground to allow a case. We cannot, under any circumstances, be oblivious of the fact that, rights and liabilities of the parties are strictly circumscribed by the contract of Insurance. Therefore, while in the strictest term of the insurance scheme, alleged loss was not eligible for indemnity and above all, given that the Respondents/Complainants failed to establish their case by adducing cogent documentary proof to substantiate their claim, they do not deserve any relief. The Appeal, thus, succeeds. Hence, O R D E R E D The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondent/Complainants. The impugned order is hereby set aside. | |
