Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant has incurred   Rs.70,000/- from OP No.1 towards  crop loan on 10.8.2015. It is also alleged inter alia that while the loan amount was released, OP No.1 deducted certain amount towards premium to insure the crop of the complainant. During that period Government declared the same area as drought affected area for 52%. So,  complainant is entitled to get relief of Rs.36,400/- against his cultivated land vide Khata No. 13 of Mouza – Manpur. Complainant alleged that OP did neither paid any compensation nor replied in any manner. Therefore, the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs filed the complaint.

4.      OP No.1 filed written version stating that there is no cause of action to file the case but one Chandra Sekhar Sahu has availed loan for the self same land for Khata No. 13, Mouza – Manpur for Rs. 97,721/-. As the loan for the self same land was pending unpaid, the premium amount was not made available. However, it is submitted that the complainant already availed insurance benefit by the self-same land. The complainant has resorted to fraud and suppressing the fact of availing further loan. It is stated that OP No.1 has no deficiency of service on their part.

5.      OP Nos. 2 and 3 only filed written version stating that there was Govt. notification to avail crop insurance.

6.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            Hence in view of the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case the complaint is allowed against the opposite party No.1(one) is directed to pay an amount of Rs.36,400/- (Rupees thirty six thousand four hundred) only with an interest @6% (six percent) per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e. Dt.22/03/2017 till the date of order towards the compensation of the loss sustained by the complainant due to non-remittance of the premium amount to the insurance agencies of the Govt. and also further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees  five thousand) only towards the mental financial  loss undergone by him and litigation expenses within thirty days from the receipt of the order, in default of which the total awarded amount would carry an interest @ 9% (nine percent) per annum till the actual realization of the same.

            Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Forum today on Dt.06/08/2018 in the result the complaint is allowed against the opposite party No.1 (one) and the opposite party No.2 (two) & No.3 (three) are exonerated from any liability, and the case is disposed off.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by OP No.1 and also by not following the principle of law. It shows that onus lies on the complainant by proving the deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1. Learned District Forum ought to have asked the complainant to produce the documents to show that premium was deducted so as to avail the insurance claim. Without any iota of evidence, the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order which is illegal and improper.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the insurance company has not been made a party in this case and the learned District Forum has not taken into consideration of all these facts because it is for the insurance company to answer whether the complainant is entitled to the insurance claim as prayed for in the complaint case. In toto, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

9.      Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the complainant has already proved granting loan of Rs.70,000/- by  proving Bank slip dated 10.8.2015. He also submitted that the complainant has clearly stated in the complaint that premium amount has been deducted by OP No.1 and it is for OP No.1 to answer why the insurance compensation was not allowed in favour of the complainant. He further submitted that the plea of OP No.1 that the land in question stands in the name of Chandra Sekhar Sahu has not been proved due to lack of any document. He stated that not a  single document is filed by OP No.1 to substantiate his plea. So he submitted to confirm the impugned order by dismissing the appeal.

10.    Considered the submission of learned counsel for respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

11.    It is well settled in law that the complainant has to prove deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1.

12.    The impugned order shows that the onus lies on OP No.1 to prove the case. But the principle of law has been settled otherwise as stated above. During course of argument, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the statement of account reveals deduction of premium amount. The complainant has filed certain documents before the learned District Forum. The first document is the copy of the statement of account  from 22.1.2015  to 16.2.2017. It is not disclosed from such statement of account about any deduction of premium. The second document, the Bank slip dated 10.8.2015 shows that Rs.70,000/- has  been sanctioned to the complainant. The plea of the complainant that out of said amount certain amount has been debited as premium is not available on record placed by the complainant. Apart from this, the complainant has not filed any  document of land  record to justify  claiming of compensation on a particular land. In the circumstances, when the basic deduction of premium by the complainant  for his landed property are not proved by the complainant, shifting of  the onus   to OP No.1 to prove the same does not arise. This aspect has not been gone through by the learned District Forum.

13.    Besides, OP No.1 has taken the plea that it has not admitted in the written version about deduction of any premium. It is clearly stated that loan for the land pending unpaid. Therefore, it is clear that when the premium has not been deducted or debited, the question of payment of insurance compensation for the drought affected area never arises. It is true that there is a scheme of the Government but the modality available to the farmers is to be observed. This aspect has not been gone through by the learned District Forum.

14.    In view of above discussion, the impugned order is vulnerable and not agreed to. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.