STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BIHAR, PATNA
(Appeal No. 339 of 2016)
Agricultural Insurance Company Limited
District- Patna. Appellant.
VERSUS
Prof. Jai Mangal Sharma. Respondent.
(Appeal No. 403 of 2016)
Manager,
Union Bank of India, Hajipur. Appellant.
VERSUS
Prof Jai Mangak Sharma. Respondent.
(Appeal No. 340 of 2016)
Agriculture Insurance Company Limited. Appellant.
VERSUS
Smt. Baban Sharma,
W/o- Jai Mangal Sharma. Respondent.
(Appeal No. 404 of 2016)
Manager,
Union Bank of India, Hajipur. Appellant.
VERSUS
Smt. Baban Sharma,
W/o- Prof. Jai Mangal Sharma. Respondent.
BEFORE
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.Sinha, President and
Hon’ble Sri Upendra Jha, ADM (Rtd), Member
ORDER
Date of order: 20-07-2017
Upendra Jha, Member
1. All these appeals No. 340 of 2016, 339 of 2016, 403 of 2016 and 404 of 2016 have been preferred against the order dated 29-08-2016 passed by the District Forum, Hajipur in Complaint Case No.- 68 of 2012 and 69 of 2012 by which the O.ps.- appellants are directed to pay the respondent-complainant Rs.50,000/- as loan amount and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost separately within 45 days otherwise 15 % interest will be payable. All four appellants were Opposite-parties in the Complaint Case No. 68 of 2012 and 69 of 2012. As all appeals arose from a common order dated 29-08-2016 in Complaint Case no. 68 of 2012 and 69 of 2012 and for the same cause of action. Hence, a common order is passed in these appeals, which will be applicable in all four appeals.
2. Briefly stated, the case is that each complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- on 31-07-2009 through Kishan Credit Card (K.C.C.) from Union Bank Branch at Hajipur and it was insured by the Agriculture Insurance Company Limited. The Government of Bihar declared Vaishali District as draught affected area. But the Insurance Company did not pay the insured amount. when the complainant claimed this amount with relevant papers. Hence, the complainants filed complaints for payment of sum assured before the District Forum. The O.Ps. contested the case. The District Forum passed the impugned order against which Opposite-parties filed separate appeals.
3. The appellants have filed written notes of arguments. Heard and perused the District Forum order
4. The District Forum has considered the matter in details and held deficiency in service on the parts of Opposite-parties has allowed th claimed amount, passing the impugned order.
5. The counsel for the appellants- Insurance Company submit that the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the impugned order in view of the provisions of the “SCHEME”. The complainant contends that actual yield during Kharif 2009 has been shown as 1148 having a supporting documents, as also the multiplier 90% indemnity level would have renders the compensation payable despite the fact the average yield 1410 was not a trust worthy to June. On what basis 60% indemnity level has been chosen to be applied in this case. The O.ps. cannot agree with the proposion that the State Government decided the 60% indemnity but did not make a party in this case. The facts and grounds stated above the impugned order is not sustainable and fit to be set aside. The appeal be allowed.
6. The counsel for the O.P.-2-respondent- Union Bank in the grounds of appeal; has stated that the complainant has no grievance against the Union Bank, rather it relates to the Agricultural Insurance Company. Since the actual yield of the concerned area of Hajipur for Kharif 2009 was 1148 Kg. per Hectare which was more than the threshold yield of 846 Kg. / hectare, hence the compensation is not payable. There is no shortfall in the actual yield. However, the Bank has been made liable to pay the compensation, it is not sustainable. The order is fit to be set aside and the Bank be exempted from it.
7. Having considered the submissions of parties, grounds of appeal and on perusal of the order passed by the District Forum, it appears that the District Forum has considered the matter in details and came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite-parties and the complainants are entitled to get the compensation equal to the loan amount/ sum assured Rs.50, 000/-. All the relevant documents have been enclosed in support of the claim. The State Government had declared this area as drought affected area. Calculated threshold yield average yield of three years is multiplied by indemnity level 60% for the said Kharif Crop has been provided by the Competent Authority of State Government –District- Statical Officer, Hajipur. District Forum has passed a reasoned order and we do not find any illegality in it. There is no reason to interference in the order under appeal. Hence, the District Forum order is affirmed and all four appeals 304 of 2016, 404 of 2016, 339 of 2016 and 403 of 2016 are dismissed.
S.K.Sinha Upendra Jha
President Member
Anita
