IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.
Present: 1.Shri Pitabas Mohanty, Member
2. Miss Smita Ray, Member,(w)
Dated the 29th day of October,2021.
C.C.Case No. 100 of 2020
Sri Padmanav Acharya , S/O Pitambar Acharya
At.Palada , P.O. Nahapada ,
Dist.Jajpur. ……………. .Complainant .
(Versus)
- Secretary Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, At. Nimchoudi ,
Dist.Cuttack.
- Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Dasarathpur branch ,At/P.O. Dasarathpur
Branch, At/P.O/ Dasarathpur ,Dist.Jajpur
- M.D.General Manager,Oriental Insurance Company, Head office,At/P.O.Sahid Nagar
Bhubaneswar,Dist. Khurda.
- Secretary Taliha Samabaya Samity, At.Taliha ,P.O.Rambag,Dist.Jajpur
………………..Opp.Party.
For the Complainant: Sri R.K.Ghadei , Sri R.N. Dhal, Advocate
For the Opp.Party : 1 and 2 Sri S.R.Subudhi,Advocate
For the Opp.parties No.3 Sri A.K.Panda, Advocate .
For the Opp.Parties No.4 Sri P.K.Daspattnaik, Advocate.
Date of order: 29. 10. 2021.
SHRI PITABAS MOHANTY, PRESIDING M E M B E R .
The petitioner being the kharif agriculturist has filed the present dispute against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair Trade practice due to non-receipt of the Insurance claim against the damaged crop occurred in the year 2019-20 .
The facts shortly are that the petitioner being the agriculturist of kharif crop availed a loan from O.P.no.1 through O.P.no.2 and 4 . At the time of sanctioning the loan the O.P.no.1 and 2 has deducted Rs.1127 /- as Insurance premium from the loan of the petitioner vide loan A/C No.16322. Subsequently due to flood in the year 2019-20 the crop of the petitioner damaged. Accordingly the petitioner intimated O.P.no.2 since the other farmers have already received the Insurance claim .But it is the matter of great regret that the O.P.no.1 intimated the petitioner that his name does not find place in the Insurance payment list. That the petitioner is a consumer who is paying interest for the loan availed by him .Similarly at the time of availing the loan the O.P.no.1, 2 and O.P.no.4 has deducted the Insurance premium from the loan amount of the petitioner to be deposited in the Insurance company only to cover up the risk of kharif crop in case the kharif crop will be damaged during the period 2019-20 and in the present case since the kharif crop of the petitioner has been damaged due to flood , the O.ps are liable to pay the insurance claim to the petitioner . Accordingly due to non- receipt of the Insurance claim against the damaged crop occurred in the year 2019-20 the petitioner has filed the present dispute against the O.Ps with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay the Insurance claim to the extent declared by the Govt Palada G.P as well as a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and litigation expenses may be awarded in favour of the petitioner .
There are 4 nos of O.ps who after appearance have filed the written version separately in support of their defence.
In the written version the O.P.no.1 and 2 have stated that after collection of premium amount from the loan of the petitioner the said premium amount of Insurance has been deposited in the Insurance company (o.P.no.3) towards the future risk of kharif crop of the petitioner for the year 2019-20. As against such contention from the side of the O.p.no.1 and 2 , the O.P.no.3 Insurance company is stating that no Insurance premium of the petitioner has been deposited in the Insurance company nor the kharif crop of the petitioner for the year 2019-20 has not been insured in the Insurance company . Further it is stated by O.P.no.3 that the O.p.no.1 and 2 should file the relevant documents in case the O.p.no.1 and 2 have deposited the Insurance premium of the petitioner in respect of kharif crop for the year 2019-20.
Similarly the O.p.no.4 has filed the written version stating that the Insurance premium of the petitioner in respect of the kharif crops for the year 2019-20 has been deposited in the Insurance company through O.P.no.1 and 2.
In view of the contradicting views of both the parties we heard the argument from both the sides and after perusal of the record in details we are inclined to dispose of the dispute as per our observation below:-
- Admittedly the petitioner is a bonafide member of Taliha co-operative society who has availed kharif loan for 2019-20 amounting to Rs.56361/- vide K.C pass book No.121301392 from O.P.no.2 through O.P.no.1. At the time of sanctioning and disbursing the loan amount the O.p.no.2 has deducted Rs.1127/- towards Insurance premium which is required to be deposited by O.p.no.2 in the Insurance company (O.P.no.3) only to cover up the risk of damage crop for the year 2019-20 . In the written version though it is stated by O.P.no.1 and 2 that the Insurance premium of the petitioner in respect of kharif crop of 2019-20 has been deposited in the Insurance company but the insurance company has stated that no Insurance premium of the petitioner in respect of kharif crop for the year 2019-20 has been deposited by O.P.no.1 and 2 .According the kharif crop of 2019-20 of the petitioner has not been insured by Insurance company. The O.P.no.1 and 2 though filed some documents in support of the deposit of Insurance premium but such documents does not indicates the name of the petitioner. More over the O.P.no.1 and 2 have not filed any relevant /cogent evidence to prove that the insurance premium of the petitioner has been received by the Insurance company (O.P.no.3) for which the petitioner has filed several petitions dt.13.05.2021 and 23.07.2021 only to produce relevant / cogent evidence regarding deposit of Insurance premium.
The above observations from our side clearly go to establish that the O.P.no.1 and 2 has committed patent deficiency in service by not depositing the Insurance premium of the petitioner in the Insurance company for which the O.P.no.1 and 2 are liable for the loss suffered by the petitioner in view of the observation of
1. 1999(1) CPR-23-N.C ,United India Insurance Vrs. Satrughan Sinha
11. 2014(1) CPR-571-N.C
111. 2006(111)CPJ-300-N.C
IV. F.A No.311/2014-State Commission –Odisha.
O R D E R
The dispute is allowed against the O.P.no.1 ,2 and 4 and dismissed against O.p.no.3. The O.P.no.1 , 2 and O.P.no.4 are directed to pay the Insurance claim of the petitioner in respect of the damaged crop for the year 2019-20 as per Govt.guide line . As regards compensation we assess the same Rs.1000/- ( one thousand) as compensation and Rs.500/-(five hundred ) as cost of the litigation expenses. The above direction shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order ,failing which the petitioner is at liberty to take steps as per law for realization of the awarded amount.
This order is pronounced in the open commission on this the 29th day of October, 2021 under my hand and seal of the commission.
