For the complainant:- Sri Satyeen Choudhury, Advocate, Bhawanipatna.
For the O.P. No.1:- Sri S.K.Agrawal,Advocate, Bhawanipatna.
For the O.P.No.2:- Sri S.K.Mund, Advocate, Bhawanipatna.
For the O.P. No.3:- Sri Susanta Kumar Sahu, Advocate, Bhawanipatna.
ORDER.
The present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against the afore said O.Ps. for non settlement of crop insurance claims of the complainant. The brief facts of the case is briefly summarised here under.
1. The complainant is a farmer having landed property at village Nishanpur mouza recorded in his name vide khatiyan No.68 area extent to Ac. 1.19 dec. and vide Khatiyan No. 190/ 68 recorded in the name of complainant and his brother Gopinath Sahu area extent to Ac. 4.04 dec. Total area in both Khatiyan is Ac.5.23 dec. The complainant is in exclusive management and maintenance of all the affairs of agricultural lands belonging to his family. The complainant cultivate paddy crop in his agricultural land and yield about 100 quintal paddy during Kharif session. The complainant having a saving account in S.B.I, Rupra Road Branch vide account No. 30621403343 under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, all crop insurance policies are accepted through the commercial banks. The cut-off dates for receipt of proposal in respect of non loanee farmers will be for khariff season 31st. july, of each year. However seasonality discipline was modified in consultation with State Govt. and the cut-off date was extended for the khariff season 2011-12. On dt. 19.8.2011 the complainant was submitted agricultural insurance proposal land records, revenue receipts and withdrawslips of Rs.726/- towards the insurance premium before the O.P.No.1 for crop insurance of 2 hectare of paddy crop as non loanee farmer. The crop insurance proposal was certified by the Agriculture officer and threshold amount was assessed @ Rs.14,515/- per hectare. The amount of Rs.726/- was debited from the account of the complainant towards crop insurance premium. The comprehensive risk insurance will be provided to cover yield losses due to non preventable risks. The State Govt. declared loss of crops for khariff season for the year 2011-12 loss assessed Gram panchyat as unit and it was assessed @ 44% for Nisanpur G.P. In this connection the complainant approached the O.P. No.1 from time to time to get crop insurance amount. On Dt. 27.11.2013 O.P. No.1 had informed to the complainant vide their Lr. No. 36 /51 stating that the crop insurance claim of the complainant has been accepted by the O.P. No.3 and the claim amount will be credited to the account of the complainant on receipt of funds from the O.P. No.3. On Dt. 12.3.2014 the complainant had lodged a complaint against the O.P. No.1 before the Banking Ombudsman, Bhaubaneswar and the complaint petition had registered vide complaint No.1011 of 2013-2014. The said complaint had disposed off by the Banking Ombudsman on Dt.3.7.2014 with a direction to approach any other grievance redressal forum in accordance with the law. On Dt.24.12.2012 the O.P.No.2 informed the O.P. No.3 that while compiling the declaration forms for Nishanpur the branch had erroneously entered in Narla G.P. instead of Nishanpur G.P. The revised claim declaration forms were submitted to the O.P. No.3 vide letter No. 76 Dt. 19.10.2012. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.P. No.1 to pay the insured threshold amount along with cost and compensation and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the interest of justice.
2. On being noticed the O.P. No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed written version jointly and submitted that the contents of para 1 & 2 of the petition partly denied and the complainant is put to strict of the same regarding the proof of the landed property of the complainant and so far the contents of para-2 is concerned the complainant has declared that he is non loanee framer there is specific provision is that he has to file the application with full details after due verification of Agriculture Department and as per his application the concerned bank i.e. the O.P. No.1 send the details to the O.P.No.3 through the O.P. No.2. That so far the premium paid by the complainant is concerned, it has been sent to the O.P. No.3. The O.P. No.2 further submitted that the bank is the agent of the O.P.No.3 and not to pay the insurance claim and whatever the premium collected are sent to the account of the O.P. No.3 and as such whatever the claim to be paid by the O.P. No.3. The contents of para-3 needs no comment & so far the contents of para-4 and 5 are completely denied and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. As per the proposal form submitted by the complainant is coming under Narla G.P. so far the resident proof is concerned and hence as per the proposal which has been submitted by the applicant reveales that the said village is coming under Narla G.P. and the said G.P. is not declared crop loss and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any claim or compensation and there is no negligene on the part of the O.Ps. The O.Ps 1 & 2 submitted that it is the duty of the complainant to verify his application properly prior to submission & for any changes the complainant had not informed earlier hence submitted that it is the negligence of the complainant that the complainant had not informed earlier to the under signed regarding change of G.P. & accordingly the correct address of the G.P. has not been mentioned in his claim proposal, for that the complainants village is not included. Further the O.P. No. 1 & 2 is no way liable to pay any compensation. Further when the O.P. NO.1 came to know the facts about the change of G.P. through the complainant the O.P. No.1 in humanitarian ground again sent the revised claim to the O.P. No.3, but the claim has not yet been finalized and further submitted that as and when the claim comes, the same will be credited to the account of the complainant. In this connection the O.P. No.2 is no way related about the facts stated by the complainant because the O.P. No.1 send the total proposal to the O.P. No.2 and the O.P. No.2 send it to the O.P. No.3 for verification and claim.
The contents of para-6 is denied is denied by the O.Ps so far the cause of action is concerned, as there is no cause of action in this case because the complainant did not inform earlier about his mistake and so far claim is concerned the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. The O.P. No. 1 & 2 prays the forum the complaint petition be dismissed against the O.Ps 1 & 2 for the best interest of justice.
3. The O.P.No.3 filed written version through their learned counsel and submitted that the Govt. of Odisha in khariff 2011 has notified Gram Panchayat as insurance unit for paddy and block for Groundnut, Maize, Redgram, Cotton, Niger, Turmeric, Ginger and Jute crops. The threshold yield of paddy crop for Kalahandi District was Rs. 14,515/- per hectare under NAIS kharif 2011 season. As per the scheme the claims was paid for Nishanpur G.P. of Narla block of Kalahandi District for paddy crop @ 43.68% approximately. After settlement of claims for the said season the O.P. No.2 (Nodal bank) vide their letter No.76 Dt.19.10.2012 informed the O.P. No.3 the mistake of their S.B.I, Rupra Road branch in reporting the Non-loanee framers beneficiaries are situated in Narla G.P. of Narla block instead of actual of different G.Ps of Narla block of Kalahandi District along with original and revised declarations and requesting this O.P. to release of additional claims. Again the same was requested by the Nodal bank i.e. O.P.No .2 to the O.P. No.3 vide their letter No. 103 Dt. 24.2.2012 in which it is clearly mentioned that “while compiling the declaration forms for these farmers, the branch has erroneously entered Narla G.P. instead of aforesaid G.Ps”. As per the practice for approval of additional claims as requested by the said Nodal bank this O.P. verified the related documents at the Branch & Nodal bank level and recommended the approval of additional claims and requested the State Govt. vide letter No. 458 Dt. 14.8.2013 to give their consent to bear their additional claims share towards the above said Nodal bank. The State Govt. also had given their consent for their share of additional claims towards the above said Nodal bank vide their letter No.7043 Dt.29.8.2013. After receiving the State Govt’s. consent the O.P. No.3 forwarded the matter to the Govt. of India additional claims committee for their approval of the additional claims through head office at New Delhi. Actual yield data for paddy for Nishanpur G.P. of Narla block of Kalahandi District as per revised declaration was reported as 815 Kg/Ha where as Threshold yield was 1447 Kg/Ha. As actual yield was less than Threshold yield a shortfall of 632 Kg/ha is reported and claim was payable for the G.P. @ 43.68% (approx.) (Certificate enclosed as annexure-VIII). In this particular case the sum insured of the complainant was Rs.29,030/-. Hence a claims of Rs.12,679.31 was payable to the complainant as per the claims formula to which he was deprived due to wrong reporting of the name of the G.P. by the Branch. In written version para- 9 the O.P.No.3 clearly mentioned “In case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/omissions of the Nodal bank/branch/PACS the concerned institutions only shall make good all such loses” the bank will held liable to settle the admissible claims to the insured farmers. Hence the O.P. No.3 prayed to dismiss the case against him.
The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version. Arguments from the learned counsels for both the parties heard. Perused the record, documents, written argument filed by the parties.
The learned counsels for both the parties vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts as well as on law.
FINDINGS.
4. On perusal of the written argument filed by the complainant it is revealed that the complainant is a farmer having landed property at village: Nishanpur mouza recorded in his name vide Khatiyan No. 68 to the extent of Ac. 1.19 Dec. and vide Khatiyan No. 190 / 68 recorded in the name of complainant and his brother Gopinath Sahu to the extent of Ac.4.04 Dec. Total area of both Khatiyan is Ac.5.23 Dec. which is marked as Annexure-I. The complainant had cultivated paddy crop in his agricultural land during kharif for the year 2011. Further the complainant have a saving bank account in State bank of India, Rupra Road branch vide account No. 30621403343. Under Agriculture insurance scheme all crop insurance policies are accepted through banks. The cut-off dates for receipt of proposl of non-loanee farmers will be for khariff season 31st. July, each year. On Dt. 19.8.2011 the complainant had submitted his Agricultural insurance proposal along with Xerox copies of R.O.R. Revenue receipts and withdraw slip of Rs. 726/- towards the insurance premium before the B.M., S.B.I., Rupra Road for crop insurance of 2 hectare of paddy crops as non-loanee farmer. The amount of Rs.726/- was debited from the account of the complainant on Dt.19.8.2011 towards crop insurance premium which is marked as Annexure-2.
The O.P. No.1 & 2 in their written version at para -1 admitted that the premium paid by the complainant has been sent to the O.P. No.3 and further submitted that the bank is the agent of the O.P.No.3.
Coming to the merits of the case we observed the State Govt. had declared loss of crops for khariff season for the year 2011-12 loss assessed Gram Panchayat as unit for paddy crops and it was assessed @ 44% for Nisanpur G.P. Due to non payment of crop loss amount the complainant on Dt. 12.3.2014 had lodge a complaint against the O.P. No.1 before the Banking Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar and the complaint was registered vide complaint No.1011 /2013-14. The said complaint had disposed up by the Banking Ombudsman on Dt. 3.7.2014 with a direction to approach any other grievance redressal forum in accordance with the law. The complainant has received the order of the Banking Ombudsman along with other related documents of the Bank. Among the said document a communication had been made on Dt.24.12.2012 by the O.P. No.2 informing the O.P. No.3 that “while compiling the declaration forms for Nishanpur the branch had erroneously entered in Narla G.P. instead of aforesaid G.P. The revised claim declaration forms were submitted to the O.P. No.3 vide Letter No. 76 Dt. 19.10.2012”.
The O.P. No.3 admitted the allegation made by the complainant and categorically stated in para-5 of the written version that “after settlement of claims for said season, the Nodal bank i.e. O.P. No.2 vide their letter No. 76 Dt. 19.10.2012 informed the O.P No.3 about the mistake of their S.B.I,Rupra Road branch in reporting the Non-loanee farmers. Again the same was requested by the O.P. No.2 to the O.P. No.3 vide letter No. 103 Dt. 24.12.2012 in which it is clearly mentioned that “while compiling the declaration forms for these farmers, the branch has erroneously entered NARLA G.P. in stead of aforesaid G.Ps
In written version para- 9 the O.P.No.3 clearly mentioned “In case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/omissions of the Nodal bank/branch/PACS the concerned institutions only shall make good all such loses” the bank will held liable to settle the admissible claims to the insured farmers. Hence a claims of Rs.12,679.31 was payable to the complainant as the claims formula who had been deprived due to wrong reporting name of G.P. by the O.P. No.1.
On perusal of the record it is clear that the complainant is a consumer of the O.P.No.1 having an S.B. account for transaction and avails service of crop insurance from the O.Ps and the premium of the crop insurance had been deducted on Dt. 19.8.2011 from the account No. 30621403343 of the complainant. Again this forum observed and it is clear that due to wrong entry committed by the O.P.No.1 the complainant is deprived of the benefit declared under the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, khariff season 2011. In view of the above facts, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1.
In view of the above discussion relating to the above case & on perusal of the record, the complaint petition, documents, and in the light of the settled legal position stated by us above there exists a strong “prima facie” case in favor of the complainant. Hence we allow this complaint petition in part. Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.
ORDER.
In the result with these observations, findings, discussions the complaint petition is allowed in part against the O.P No. 1 on contest and dismissed against the O.P. No.2 & 3
The O.P No.1 is ordered to pay Rs.12,679.00 to the complainant towards damage of crop during khariff 2011-12 as per the crop insurance scheme. The O.P No.1 is further ordered to pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.
The O.Ps are ordered to comply the above directions within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to file execution proceeding as laid down in the C.P. Act for realization of the same from the O.Ps.
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 10th. Day of March, 2017.
Member. President
Documents relied upon:-
By the complainant.
- Xerox copies of the patta Khatiyan No. 68, 190/86.
- Xerox copies of the S.B. Account No. 30621403343 of the complainant.
- Letter Dt.3.7.2014 of the Banking Ombudsman,BBSR addressed to the complainant.
- Letter Dt.24.12.2012 of the O.P.No.2 addressed to the O.P.No.3.
By the O.Ps No.1 & 2 :
Nil.
By the O.Ps No.3.
- Letter Dt.10.8.2012 of the O.P. No.3 addressed to the O.P. No.2.
- Letter DT. 24.12.2012 of the O.P. No.2 addressed to the O.P. No.3.
- Declaration agricultural insurance scheme declaration form non loan farmers-6 Nos.
- Letter DT. 14.8.2013 of the O.P. No.3 addressed to the Cooperative Deptt, Govt. of Odisha.
- Letter No. 7043 DT. 29.8.2013 of the Dy. Secretary to Govt., Cooperation Deptt.
- Office memorandum DT.8.11.2010 of Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture.
- To whosoever it may concern certificate issued by the Deputy General Manager,
President
