Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/12/175

SATYA PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                            FIRST APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2012

(Arising out of order dated 29.12.2011 passed in C.C. No. 141/2011 by the District Forum, Shivpuri)  

 

SATYAPAL SINGH.                                                                   …            APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

& NATIONAL AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO.                  …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN      :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGRAWAL     :      MEMBER

 

                                                O R D E R

25.04.2016

 

          None for the appellant.

           Shri Girish Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

           Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.           

           

As per Shri Subhash Jain : 

                      This is an appeal filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) against the order dated 29.12.2011 passed in C.C.No. 141/2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shrivpuri (hereinafter referred to as ‘Forum’) whereby the complaint has been disposed of.

2.                     Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant had an account of loan with the respondent no.1 bank and got the crop of the appellant insured with the respondent no.2 insurance company after payment of insurance premium. Rabi crop of the appellant damaged due frost hit of which inspection was made by the Patwari and the Tehsildar of the area.  It is alleged that he suffered loss of Rs.98,140/- but the respondents failed to pay him compensation, he therefore filed a complaint against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.98,140/-, Rs.25,000/- towards mental pain and Rs.5000/- as cost.

 3.                    The respondent no.1 bank resisted the complaint that there is no responsibility of the bank, therefore the complaint be dismissed.  The respondent no. 2 insurance company resisted the complaint on the ground that since National Agricultural Insurance Scheme is not implemented on personal basis, it is implemented on unit

 

-2-

system.  Compensation is given only under the scheme by the nodal bank, therefore the complainant is not consumer.

4.                     The Forum vide impugned order dated 29.12.2011 disposed of the complaint holding that since the complainant has already received pro-rata compensation in the sum of Rs. 39,795/- from the government, he is not entitled to get any further relief.  The Forum has also granted liberty to appellant to approach the government for enhancement of compensation. Hence this appeal.

5.                     We have heard learned counsel for the respondents.  None appeared for the appellant.  Perused the record.

6.                     On perusal of record we find that it is an admitted fact that the appellant has been compensated for the loss of crop in the sum of Rs.39,795/- by the Government.  From the Insurance Scheme also it is established that assessment of loss is made on the basis of area unit and not on personal basis.  Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has also placed before us NFA Yield Data Checklist of shortfall and claims payable showing threshold yield, actual yield and shortfall.  From the scheme it is also clear that no claims would be admissible/payable in case the current season’s actual yield is more than the threshold yield and in the chart produced before us it is clear that the actual yield is more than the threshold yield and therefore no sum is payable. However, the appellant has got sufficient compensation from the government meaning thereby he has been adequately compensated.  In this view of the matter we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

7.                     In view of the above we find that the District Forum has rightly dismissed his complaint for enhancement of compensation.  The Forum has also granted him liberty to take appropriate steps before the government for enhancement of compensation.   We are not inclined to take a different view of the matter.  The appeal is therefore dismissed.  No order as to cost.