KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI
This is an Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 preferred against the final order and judgement dated 25/02/2022, in CC/24/2020, by the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur.
Brief fact of the Case is that the Respondent No.1/Complainant, being a farmer, having cultivable land in Dangbiral Mouza, J.L. No.214, Plot No.86, Area 60 decimal, PS – Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur. On 09/02/2018 the Respondent No.1/Complainant, took loan from the Respondent No.2, for boro paddy cultivation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only, in the above-mentioned landed property, which was covered under Crop Insurance by the Appellant/Company, for a sum of Rs.45,750/- (Rupees One Forty five thousand seven hundred fifty) only, vide Account No.112000734193. The crop had been destroyed by a hailstorm to the extent of 33% and above and the same was published in a Notification, published by the Respondent No.4. 119 small and marginal farmers of the said area got the compensation from the Appellant, but the Respondent No.1/Complainant did not receive any such compensation. The Respondent No.1/Complaint had met with the Appellant/Company and Respondent on 16/11/2018, but none of them gave the compensation, but harassed the Respondent No.1/Complainant, by providing unnecessary reasons. Finally, the Respondent No.1/Complainant made a complainant before the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, but nothing came of it. Finding no alternative, the Respondent No.1/Complainant, lodged a complainant before the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur, with necessary prayers.
The Appellant failed to appear before the Ld. Forum below and the Case was decided ex-parte against them.
The Respondent No.2 appeared before the Ld. Forum below, by filing written version and submitted list of the loanee members Crop (Boro) 2017-18 on 19/12/2018, mentioning the name of the Respondent No.1/Complainant in Serial No.77. The Notification published on 04/06/2018 regarding damage of crop of boro paddy and jute in Balurghat Block to the extent of 33% and above, caused by sporadic occurrence of hailstorm on 29/04/2018 in which Kumar gram Mouza, J.L. No.218, under Gopalbati GP of Balurghat Block, had been shown included, had also been submitted. It was further mentioned that boro paddy of 60 hectors of land were damaged above 33% out of 60 hectors and the Nos. of affected farmers mentioned as 240. Similarly, in respect of jute, 18 hectors of land damaged above 33% out of 18 hectors and the No. of farmers affected as 72. It was further mentioned that the Respondent No.2, was not responsible for non-payment of the insured amount by the Appellant/Company and the Appellant/Company was only responsible in this regard and prayed that the Respondent No.2, should be exempted.
The Respondent No.3 appeared and filed a written version, wherein it denied that the Respondent No.1/Complainant, was a consumer under him. It was further stated that on 06/01/2018 the Respondent No.1/Complainant had availed loan from Respondent No.2, for boro paddy cultivation, of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only, which was covered as Crop Insurance by the Appellant/Company for a sum of Rs.45,750/- (Rupees One Forty five thousand seven hundred fifty. It was further stated that in the year 2017-18, the Respondent No.2 sent a list of 319 farmers to the Respondent No.3, for the purpose of uploading in the PMFBY Portal, with the names and particulars. Out of the 319 nos. of loanee farmers, incomplete data of 38 farmers were found and only 281 nos. of farmers were uploaded in the Portal. 119 of the above farmers received the compensation amount for 2017-18 Rabi Crops. The work of uploading in the PMFBY Portal, was done in the process of off line utility, by making an Excel file which is to be loaded in the Portal and the same was performed by the Respondent No.3 in this manner. After uploading the same the Respondent No.3 had no scope/opportunity to open the same. The Respondent No.3 had performed his duty correctly, was proved by the fact that the names of 319 candidates sent by the Respondent were among the Sl. Nos. 19, 43, 57, 268 & 303, to have received the Claim. Some names were not accepted by the Portal and that had happened due to the disturbance of the Portal, for which the Respondent No.3 was not be blamed. Hence, the Respondent No.3 had no issues of negligence, latches or deficiency of service, for which no award should be passed against him.
The Respondent No.4 did not appear, for which reason, the Case was decided ex-parte against him.
After going through the evidence filed by the Respondent No.1/Complainant the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur, passed the impugned Order directing the Appellant/Company, to credit an amount of Rs.22,875/- (Rupees twenty two thousand eight hundred seventy five ) only with interest @ 8% from 04/06/2018, till the full realization in the Account of the Respondent No. 1/Complainant along with Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, as compensation within 45 (forty-five) days, from the date of passing of the impugned Order.
Decisions with Reasons
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant at the time of final hearing, at the very outset had submitted that the address of the Appellant had been changed, for which reason the notice of the Ld. Forum below could not be served upon the Appellant/Company, following which the Appellant could not appear, to contest the Case below. Hence, for this reason, the Appellant should be accorded an opportunity to contest the Case. He has also submitted that the Respondent No.1/Complainant had obtained loan from the Respondent No.2 for boro paddy and the said Respondent No.2 had shared the proposal to the designated nodal bank. The Appellant/Company therefore had to deal only with the nodal bank and not with all the PACS. That apart the details of the Respondent No.1/Complainant had not matched with the insured farmers’ record, available with the Appellant for Rabi 2017-18 season, on NCIP, under the District Dakshin Dinajpur. In the absence of the coverage details, the Appellant could not be held liable for non-payment of Crop Insurance Claim towards the crop loss, incurred by the Respondent No.1/Complainant. Moreover, the failure of the Respondent No.3 to upload the details of the Respondent No.1/Complainant, on the NCIP, under Rabi 2017-18 season for boro paddy crop. In this regard, the Appellant/Company had settled the Claims of the 119 farmers, covered under the Scheme, as per the enrolment procedure under the Scheme. Hence, for this reason, the Appellant/Company should not be held liable for the failure on the part of the Respondent No.3, to upload the details of the Respondent No.1/Complainant. He therefore prayed that the instant appeal be allowed.
None appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.1/Complainant and the Respondent No.4, for which reason, the appeal was heard ex-parte against them.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.2, had submitted that on the basis of a Notification published by the Respondent No.4, the number of affected farmers had been identified as 72. He therefore prayed that the Respondent No.2, was not liable for the non-payment of the insured amount.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.3 had submitted that the allegation against the Respondent No.3, that they had not provided full details, pursuant to which the Appellant/Company could not process the claims, could not be true as it can be stated that out of 281 farmers data and names had been uploaded by the Respondent No.3 and 119 farmers had received the claims from the Appellant/Company and therefore the allegation against the Respondent No.3 fails. He had relied in the judgement passed in Gurmel Singh Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 4071 of 2022 decided on May 20th of 2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
From the submissions made and the impugned order, it becomes crystal clear that the address of the Appellant/Company as mentioned in the title page of the impugned judgement is quite different from the address mentioned on affidavit, in the memo of appeal, enhancing the submissions of non-receipt of summons by the Appellant/Company. That apart a dispute has also been raised with regard to the coverage of insurance of the Respondent No.1/Complainant and therefore an opportunity to contest the claims made by the Respondent No.1/Complainant needs to be accorded for the interest of justice. Hence, when this new fact has been cited, the same needs to be tested before the Ld. Trial Forum, as new facts cannot be entertained at this Appellate Forum. Therefore, this appears to be a fit Case to be transferred on remand, to the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur, for providing an opportunity to the Appellant for filing written version and after a de novo trial to write a fresh judgement based on the evidences provided by the parties. As a result, the instant appeal succeeds.
It is therefore,
ORDERED
That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed on contest and ex-parte against Respondent No.1/Complainant and Respondent No.4, but without cost.
The impugned order is hereby set aside. The Appellant is directed to submit a written version within 30 (thirty)days, from the date of this order, after which the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur shall on completion of the trial and hearing the parties, write a fresh judgement, without any further delay.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties, free of cost.
Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur, for necessary information and action.
Statutory deposit be returned from whom received.
Jt. Registrar, Siliguri Circuit Bench of WBSCDRC, to do the needful.
