F I N A L   O R D E R

The complainant has filed this case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for an award directing the O.P. No.4 to pay just and proper compensation.

The complainant's case in short is that the complainant took agricultural loan of Rs.12,000/- from O.P. No.1 and 2, the Manager and the secretary, S.K.U.S. Limited (Mini Bank) on 28.02.2008. Crop Insurance was obtained on the loan amount and Insurance Premium was paid through said Mini Bank and O.P. No.3 on 01.04.2008 a hail storm occurred in the night and the entire Boro paddy got damaged. The complainant informed the incident to the O.P. No.1 and 2 and met in person for several times but no relief was achieved. Finding no way the complainant was forced to come before this Forum.

O.P. No.1 & 2 did not appear in spite of service of notices and are not contested this case by filing W.V. or appearing on the date of hearing.

O.P. No.3 contested this case by filing separate W.V., while stating inter alia that after the disbursement of loan of Boro Paddy cultivation in the Rabi Season 2007-2008, Manager of S.K.U.S. of Sonabari i.e. Mini Bank collected agriculture Insurance premium from all the farmers and sent the collected amount to this O.P. No.3, total number of farmers were 78 and total amount of premium of Rs.23,985/-, total sum assured was 1,363,25,000/-. Such total premium was of Rs.23,385/- under the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, was remitted to the regional incharge, National Agriculter Insurance Company of India and  accordingly, in the event of damage of insured crop, this O.P. has no liability to pay any compensation to any of the farmers. This O.P. Bank is only a media to collect premium from farmers and a centre of distribution of compensation to the farmers from whom premium was collected if any compensation received from the Insurance Company. This O.P. has no deficiency in service.

O.P. No.4 also contested this case by filing W.V. while stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, barred by limitation, the "Actual Yield" for the year Rabi 2007-08 season was O i.e. not a single CCE conducted here all though minimum stipulation for CCE to be conducted is 8, as per provisions of NAIS. So the claim is a sub-standard claim. No claim would be processed in Sherpur Gram Panchayet of Raiganj block of Uttar Dinajpur pertaining to Rabi 2007-08 season as per provision of NAIS. Consequently no claim is payable as per scheme provisions. It was essential on the part of the State Government to furnish yield data for Rabi crop 2007-08 and as the State Government did not furnish the actual yield data for Rabi Crop 2007-08, the claim of the complainant could not granted. It has been further stated that the O.P. No.4 has no negligence and accordingly the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

From the record it reveals that the limitation petition U/S 5 of the Limitation Act, filed by the complainant for delay in filing the complaint was allowed by the Forum vide order dated 20.08.2013.

To establish his case the complainant has submitted memo of evidence supported by affidavit, oral evidence,  questionnaires,   photocopies of receipt and letter of correspondences with the O.P. No. 1 and 2 etc.

O.P. No.3 in support of its defence submitted written objection but not adduced any evidence or documents.

O.P. No.4 to prove its case, has submitted written version, answer of questionnaires and some documents.

                                         Decisions With Reasons

We carefully perused the complaint petition, W.V. W.O., Memo of evidence oral evidence, documents and also considered the argument advanced by the parties.

From the documents and evidences it is clear that the complainant took agricultural loan from O.P. No.1 and 2 and crop insurance premium was paid to the O.P. No.4 through O.P. No.3 to cultivate Boro Paddy. It is admitted by the O.Ps. that the complainant's loan amount was cover under crop insurance and the crops i.e. Boro Paddy badly damaged on 01.04.2008 due to hail storm including the whole area of Khalsi Mouza and adjacent areas. The complainant himself along with other cultivators informed the matter with written intimation to the O.P. No.1 and 2 and O.P. No.1 and 2 by their Secretary also informed the matter with written intimation to the District Magistrate of Uttar Dinajpur with the copy to the SDO, BDO, ADO, Savadhipati of U/D Zilla Parisad and Panchayet Pradhan etc. with a recommendation to make payment of the insurance claim of the insured cultivators.

From the documents and evidences shows that O.P. No.1 and 2 disbursed the loan amount to the farmers and O.P. No.3 collected insurance premium from the insured farmers collectively and sent to the O.P. Insurance Company. So, in such circumstances O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have no role to pay any insurance claim to the farmers and they have no deficiency in service in this case. Admittedly O.P. No.4 had received the crop Insurance premium from the farmers, Boro Paddy in Rabi Season of the insured farmers was within insurance coverage, have been destroyed due to hail storm. O.P. No.4 stated in its W.V. by mentioning the system and procedure of payment of Insurance claim and argued that they are the implementing agency but from the side of the West Bengal Government did not supply the list of "___thres hold yield" or report to the O.P. No.4 as such they are unable to do.

The scheme "Rastriya Krishi Bima Yojona" was formed under the scheme of "National Agricultural Insurance Scheme" by the central Government as a welfare scheme,  where main objective of scheme is to protect farmer/ insured crops against adverse weather conditions and such welfare must be liberally construed. If the insurance company try to avoid its liability showing cause of parafornia, system, procedure e.t.c. then social welfare scheme will never implemented and the purpose of the scheme will be in vain. Where actually such insured crops were badly damaged/ destroyed, the Insurance Co. after getting information should also performed its duties with the co-ordination and consultation with the State Government and arrange for payment of insurance claim to the farmers who were especially dependent upon the only income of cultivation. At the time of hearing of argument the lawyer on behalf of the complainant placed one copy of decision of Hon'ble National commission in Revision Petition being No. 2607 of 2013,  decided on 28.01.2014, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited vs. Kishanlal and another. In that case the defence of the Insurance Company was that the crops were insured only against damage caused due to increase in average temperatures and excess rainfall and not on account of hail storm but the wheat paddy was destroyed by hail storm and in that case award was passed by the District Forum, which was also affirms by the Hon'ble National Commission.

It has also been observed that there was lack of initiative on the part of the O.P. No.4 to formulate any procedure for settlement of individual loss in consultation with the State Government and other agencies.

As the complainant took loan from the O.P. No.1 & 2 and O.P. No.3 as required under the provisions of the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme remitted the Insurance Premium to the O.P. NO.4, the O.P. No.4 only being the Insurer and implementing Agency had/ has liability and responsibility in terms of Clause - 13A of the scheme to compensate the complainant for damage of Boro Paddy sprout on individual basis as per Clause - 14 of the scheme. The O.P. No.4 got sufficient opportunity to formulate loss assessment in coordination with State Government but has neglected to do so, causing harassment of the complainant and O.P. No.4 also was/is deficient in service. This Forum and the complainant should not wait for unlimited period for formulation of loss assessment by the O.P. No.4 in coordination with the State Government.

Now it is essential to assess the loss suffered by the complainant but there is no sufficient material on record to assess the same. In this case it is not disputed that the complainant took agricultural loan of Rs.12,000/- and he has liability to repay such loan amount with interest.

In the above discussions we are of opinion that amount of loan taken along with compound interest @ 10% p.a. from the  date of disbursement of such loan amount, should be the minimum loss of the complainant for damage of Boro Paddy sprout, due to hailstorm. The O.P. No.4 only being the implementing Agency of the scheme, has liability to pay such loss including  interest. The O.P. No.4 has also liability to pay compensation for harassment and to pay further amount as litigation cost to the complainant.

Thus the case succeeds.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence it is

O R D E R E D,

That the complaint case being No. CC - 76/2012 is allowed on contest against the O.P. No.4 and is dismissed on contest against the rest without cost.

That the complainant do get an award directing the O.P. No.4 to pay Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) only with interest @ 10% p.a., which will be calculated from the date of disbursement of such loan amount up to the date of full realization, to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only as compensation for harassment to the complainant  and to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from this day,  failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law.

Copy of this order be supplied to the each party free of cost.