HON'BLE MR. KAMAL DE, PRESIDING MEMBER
Order No. : 10
Date : 14.01.2020
Parties are present through their respective Ld. Lawyers.
The instant Appeal being No. A/21/2019 is taken up for hearing.
Heard Ld. Lawyers of all sides. Considered.
Challenge, in the instant Appeal, is against the impugned order dated 13th June, 2018 passed in CC/87/2017 by the Ld. DCDRF, Burdwan.
The factual matrix involved in the instant Appeal is as follows :
Nine (9) farmers during the year 2014-15 cultivated Boro Paddy taking loan under Kishan Credit Card (KCC) from Allahabad Bank, Sahebganj Branch under block Bhatar, Purba Bardhaman (OP 1).
Under the provision of National Crop Insurance Scheme, 2014-15, their crop would have been inured. The farmers appealed to the DCDRF, Burdwan against the Manager of Allahabad Bank, Sahebganj Branch (OP 1) and Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bhatar Block (OP 2 – appellant) as they did not get insurance claim for their crop which had been damaged during hail storm. Ld. Forum below passed order against both the Manager of Allahabad Bank and Assistant Director of Agriculture directing to compensate the farmers in equal share. Appellant being Assistant Director of Agriculture has preferred the Appeal against the impugned order contending, inter-alia, that appellant being Assistant Director of Agriculture Bhatar Block is in under no liability in the incident of loanee farmers deprived of their claim or to compensate them accordingly.
In filing the Appeal it is alleged by the appellant that Ld. Forum below erred in law and in fact in disposing the complaint case and in passing impugned order against the appellant.
It is also ventilated that the Ld. Forum below erred in law as well as in fact by directing the appellant to compensate the respondent and holding the Appellants responsible though appellant having no fault. The crux of controversy is whether Ld. Forum committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned judgement.
We have gone through the argument as advanced from the respective sides.
We have also browsed over the certified copy of the impugned order dated 13.06.2018, averments in the amended complaint, written version, photocopy of notification and guidelines of MNAIS showing the guidelines for PMFBY (Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yogana)/BFMY (Bangla Fasal Bima Yogana), notification being No. 682 -NAB/Crop. Ins./7C – 05/2014 dated 22.10.2014 of Government of West Bengal Department of Agriculture cropping insurance Branch, Nabanna, Howrah.
Insurance of Boro Paddy and compensation to farmers owing damage of the crop had been governed by the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS) during the year 2014-15. The role and responsibilities of different stake holders viz. State Government, Implementing Agency/Insurance Agency (Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited), financial institutions, farmers, bureau of Applied Economics and statistics had been clearly indicated in the notification as mentioned earlier. The operational modalities of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme regarding the responsibility of different stake holder had been laid down in the notification.
We find that role and responsibility of the State Government are as follows :
- Notification of crops and defined area,
- Premium rates and subsidy if applicable,
- The cut off dates for collection of proposals and remittance of premium along with crop insurance declaration to IA,
- Conduction of Crop Cutting Experiment (CCE) and financial yield data for all unit area for notified crops for the crop season to the IA,
- In case the State administration fails to furnish yield data based on requisite number of CCE’s or fail to furnish yield data within stipulated date, responsibility of such claims, if any arising out of such data will totally raise with State administration.
The role and responsibilities of the financial institution i.e. loan giving Bank is collection of proposal and insurance charges, preparation of a statement of monthly crop wise defined area wise details of crop insurance with insurance charges and to remit the same to the IA within cut off dates. In case a farmer is deprived by any benefit under the schedule due to errors, omissions, commission of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACS, the concerned institution only shall make good all such losses.
From the document (Annexures A) regarding claim settlement of BCCB Ltd., it appears that KCC holders of BCCB Limited of 14 numbers of Gram Panchayat of Bhatar Block got insurance claim.
This reveals that settlement of claim for damage of paddy was done by the IA (Implementing Agency) for the loanee farmers of all 14 GPS. This was possible only when State Administration had discharged all its duties completely. It appears that settlement of claim for damage of Boro Paddy was done by the implementing agency for the loanee farmers for 14 Gram Panchayat.
It is true that Crop Insurance Company (AICI Ltd.) is not made a party in the complaint case in the Ld. DCDRF, Burdwan but that does not alter the situation. So far FIs (Financial Institutions) are concerned, according to the notification for crop loan disposed under Kishan Credit Cards, FIs shall maintain all control and record as required under the scheme. In case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/omission/commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PSCS, the concerned institution only shall make good all such losses.
We find from the documents on record that 134 farmers including the present complainant appealed to the Manager of Allahabad Bank Sahebganj Branch. Respondent 2 in Appeal and OP 1 in Complaint Case) as they did not get insurance claim for their crop which had been damaged due to hail storm but the concerned Branch Manager slept over the matter and did not take adequate, appropriate and effective step for making good all such losses.
We, however, do not find any omission or commission on behalf of the appellant.
Moreover, State Government is not a service provider and in noway State Administration is liable for the incident of the complainant being a loanee-farmer deprived of his claim.
We think that Ld. Forum below erred in holding the appellant jointly and severally along with OP – 1 (Manager of Allahabad Bank) deficient in service.
We think that appellant should be absolved of responsibilities or dearth of service in the whole consequences.
We do not find any deficiency of service on the part o the appellant.
In result, the Appeal merits success.
We hold that appellant should not be held conjointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the complainant, along with the concerned Bank.
We think that it is the duty of the Bank being Financial Institution to make good for the loss suffered by the complainant.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the instant Appeal being No. A/21/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest.
Appellant is not liable to pay the amount of compensation or interest conjointly with the Bank as directed by the Ld. Forum below in the Complainant Case being No. 87 of 2017.
The directions in the impugned judgement shall be binding on OP 1 i.e. Branch Manager Allahabad Bank only.
We uphold the rest part of observations and the judgement as against OP 1. (Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, branch at Sahebganj) in CC/87/2017.
Complainant case being CC/87/2017 is dismissed as against the appellant i.e. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bhatar Block.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
