Sri Sudhakar Senapothi, Member

Complainant Chandrakali Agrawal has filed this case u/s 12 of the CP Act. 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank for making wrong entry of the name of his village in the insurance proposal sheet thereby devoiding him from getting his insurance claim for loss of crop and praying therein for direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs.69,194.40/-  to the petitioner with interest from the date of declaration of drought till realization.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is the tenant of an area of Ac.11.43 dec. of land in village Mantritaria pertaining to Khata No.23. The complainant availed crop insurance for the financial year 2017-18 through Axis Bank on payment of Rs.2,354/- towards premium for insurance. Due to loss of crop in that year he lodged claim before the Bank i.e. OP but the insurance claim was not paid. On enquiry from different authorities he came to know that the name of his village has been wrongly mentioned as Bargaon in place of Mantritarai for which his insurance claim has not been paid. During the financial year 2017-18 Government declared compensation of Rs.31,452/- per hectare and accordingly the complainant was eligible to get insurance claim of Rs.69,194.40/- for 2.20 hectares of land. Since he was devoid of getting the insurance claim from the insurance company for wrong entry of the village against his name, he has filed this case claiming the compensation from the OP.

2.           After receipt of notice the OP appeared through his Advocate and filed  his written statement. The OP stated that on the basis of the application made by the complainant the insurance premium was deducted and sent to the insurance company. The banks only act as an intermediary and the complainant should have impleaded the insurance company as a party. The OP No.1 being a responsible officer of the bank performs his duty as per the rules and regulation of the bank and do not put the customers to any kind of agony. Therefore he pray for dismissal of the case with cost.

3.           The complainant in support of his case has filed the copy of his Adhar card, copy of the R.O.R, copy of the rent receipt, copy of the passbook, copy of the e-mails exchanged between the bank and insurance company and copy of the pleader notice with original postal receipt. On the other hand the OP has not filed any document. Either of the parties have not adduced any oral evidence in support of their cases.

4.           The only point for adjudication is whether the bank employee in charge of the counter wrongly mentioned the name of the village as Bargaon in place at Mantritarai leading to non-payment of the insurance claim of the complainant ?

          It is specifically pleaded in bold letters in para-8 of the complaint petition that “ the then person in charge of bank counter wrongly mentioned the land village( Mouza) as Bargaon in place of Mantritarai”. This specific allegation of the complainant is not denied by the OP in his written statement. The OP has not whispered a single word that the allegation of the complainant as made in para-8 is wrong and the Bank while remitting the premium has mentioned the correct name of the village of the complainant. Since the OP did not challenge the pleadings it is deemed to have been admitted by him.

5.           It is pleaded by the OP that the insurance company is a necessary party in this case and the complainant should have impleaded him as a party. In this case the allegation is against the bank for wrong entry of the name of his village in the insurance proposal sheet. Since the name of the village is wrong a person of the same name of another village  has been insured. So the insurance company in its mail dt.12.05.2018 addressed to the OP has clearly stated that “the claim of Tankadhar Tahani and Dibyakanti Sabar have already been directly credited to their respective account as mentioned. The claim of remaining farmers are rejected as no loss has been declared in their Gram Panchayat by the State Govt.” It is seen from the mail adt.12.05.2018 that the name of the village of the complainant has been mentioned as “ Bargaon”. Since the fault exclusively lies with the OP there is no necessity to implead the insurance company as a party in this case.

6.           The complainant claims that he is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 69,194.40/-(Rupees Sixty nine thousand one   hundred ninety four and forty paise )only  for loss of crop which is not disputed by the OP.

7.           From the discussions made above it is clear that due to the wrong entry of the name of the village of the complainant in the proposal sheet submitted for crop insurance along with the premium to the insurance company he was devoid of getting the insurance claim arising out of loss of crop. Submission of wrong name of the village to the insurance company amount to deficiency in service and because of this fault the complainant has suffered a lot and was compelled to file this case.

8.           The allegation of the complainant is that the person in charge of the Bank counter has made the wrong entry. He is an employee of the bank and if any loss is caused to any citizen by his conduct the bank is liable to compensate the person who has suffered for such careless conduct. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Dev. Authority  vs Balbir Singh reported in CJD 2004 – vol-2 page 88 SC has ruled that the compensation awarded  to the victims cannot be paid from public funds. The concerned authority has to make the payments first as directed and recover the amount from the person responsible for such act of negligence.

9.           As such a case of deficiency in service coupled with harassment is clearly made out against the OP he is liable to compensate the complainant and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the OP. The OP is made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 69,194.40/-(Rupees Sixty nine thousand one   hundred ninety four and forty paise )only  to the complainant with compound interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. 30.09.2019 to be compounded annually till payment is made. The OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- ( Rupees Twenty thousand) only towards deficiency in service and harassment caused to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) only  towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt   of the order, failing which interest @ 12% shall be charged on the cost and compensation as awarded.