Fact of the case in Brief :- The complainant in this case has taken an Agricultural loan for Paddy Crop in the Kharif season of 2011 from State Bank of India, Sinapali Branch on dated 09.08.2011. vide No. AGL 31877295428 Rs.95,000/-(Rupees Ninety five Thousand) only sanctioned for him as loan. The Complainant has utilized the loan amount and sown paddy over his land and that crop has insured before the SBI Sinapali as a loanee further and the SBI Sinapali has debited Rs. 1260/- towards Crop Insurance premium for the Kharif Season 2011.
Accordingly to the complainant, the paddy crop of the Kharif season got damaged due to drought in the district of Nuapada as well as Godal Gram Panchyat. The field rate of Godal G.P of Sinapali Block, Nuapada district was 5.32 quintal per hector which was indemnified by the Agricultural Insurance Company Ltd., As per the guideline of Agricultural Insurance Company. The Complainant has entitled to for Indemnification claim of the above loan amount. After damage by drought the B.M SBI ADB has not taken any action for realization of the crop Insurance benefit from the Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd, Rather issued a demand notice for recovery loan of Rs. 1,09,547/- with interest upto 15.05.2014 against the complainant on dated 28.05.2014 which caused mental agony and financial burden to the complainant.
The complainant claimed for relief of entire insured loan amount realized by Agricultural Insurance Company Ltd. and waived out the loan from S.B.I. (ADB) Sinapali Branch given direction by the Forum to issue a no due certificate. Again a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand)only awarded towards financial burden and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to unfair-trade-practice and negligence of the O.Ps and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only towards cost of litigation be awarded to the complainant. Relevant documents produced before the Forum.
- Demand notice on dated 28.05.2014 by B.M.,SBI(ADB) Sinapali.
- Statement of loan A/c No. 31877295428 of the complainant of Sinapali Branch.
The O.P. No. 1 & 2 filed their version jointly along with affidavit and O.P.No.1 is not the necessary party as per him (O.P.No.1). O.P. No. 2 is the responsible party to file so cause in this case, as appropriate authority to represent the case. If there is any grievance the complainant has every right to file the case before the Hon’ble Forum against the Branch Manager, S.B.I., Sinapali (O.P. No.2).
The Advocate for the O.P. No. 1 & 2 has not argued in this case though sufficient opportunity has give to them. The complainant has submitted that he has availed a K.C.C. Loan from S.B.I., Sinapali Branch and insured his Agricultural land for the year 2011 under Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme) and a premium amount of Rs.1,260/- (Rupees one thousand two hundred and sixty) only had been debited from the K.C.C. Account of the complainant on dated 22.08.2011 for Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme 2011. Further the S.B.I. Sinapali (O.P. No.2) has submitted that none of a single W.B.C.I.S. beneficiary of Sinapali Block received any compensation from the Agricultural Insurance Company/Govt. for the 2011. Hence, no claim was settled by I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Insurance Company. So payment of compensation does not arise. As such the O.P. No.2 S.B.I., Sinapali has every right to issue demand notice for repayment of outstanding dues of K.C.C. Loan with interest to the complainant. Hence the allegation of the complainant is false and concocted one. It is submitted by the O.P. No. 2 that the complainant neither approached to O.P. No. 2 regarding grievances if any for redressal purpose before filing of this case. So this case is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled for any relief as there is no cause of action arose.
The O.P. No. 3 has not filed any version in this case and hence he set ex-parte on dated 19.05.2015 but he has argued the case through his counsel and argued that the O.P. No. 2 is the like a postman who collect the premium from petitioner and deposit the same in his favour (O.P. No.3). Hence he (O.P. No.3) is not liable. The premium of the Kharif Season 2011 but regarding this O.P. No. 3 has not filed any documents nor any written version.
The Hon’ble Forum has come to a conclusion that after hearing and argument of the complainant though O.P.No.3 has not filed any version he set ex-parte O.P. No.1 & 2 has appeared before the Forum jointly filed their version not appeared at the time of argument. O.P. No.2 has collected premium Rs. Rs.1,260/- (Rupees one thousand two hundred and sixty) only for agriculture insurance from the account of the complainant in the Kharif Season 2011. No claim for that has settled till today in this Branch. Therefore O.P. No. 2 is liable. It is a case of 2011 but the complainant has filed this case on 06.09.2014 after getting demand notice as the complainant has impression that his loan is already waived out but when got notice from O.P. No.2 for repayment of Agricultural loan which he was insured on dated 15.05.2014 he immediately approached to O.P. No. 2 that about the crop insurance and etc. But the O.P. No. 2 is not in a mood to discuss about the crop insurance for which the complainant has came to this Forum and the limitation is count from 15.05.2014 not from the date of filing.
O R D E R.
Perused the records and documents, heard argument from complainant and O.P. No. 3 and comes to a conclusion that the O.P. No. 2 is liable to compensate the agricultural insurance amount.
And directed to disburse the Crop Insurance benefit of that season according to the terms and conditions declared by the State Govt. in the year 2011 within 2 (two) months.
And further more O.P. No.2 has to pay the litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two hundred)only to the petitioner/complainant within the above period.
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 22nd day of December 2015.
