Hon'ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The alleged deprivation from getting insurance led this Complainant to file the present case against the OP Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank. The short history of the case in a few words is that the Complainant Soleman Miah is a cultivator by which he earns his livelihood. The Complainant intended to borrow on KC loan from Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Maruganj i.e. O.P. No.1 for producing potatoes in his own land. Accordingly, he borrowed Rs.50,000/- on KC loan from OP bank Maruganj Branch, Cooch Behar on 14.11.14 bearing No.133/3569 against which the O.P. No.1 deducted Rs.2,182/- from the Complainant’s savings account No.4000501330003569 on 07.02.15 as crop insurance in Rabi season, 2015-16. The said loan was under coverage of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme NAIS of Agriculture Insurance Company of India. As per terms and conditions of the said loan the borrower is entitled to get the compensation of crop insurance if the crops be rotten due to natural calamity and other reasons i.e. putrefaction. Clause- 18.1 and 18.2 contain several provisions to provide insurance under the said circular. After sanctioning the aforesaid loan the Complainant cultivated potatoes in his own land. During the said Rabi seasons, the produced potatoes were badly affected with putrefaction/ rottenness at the time of germination/ sprouting due to natural calamity and thereafter the Complainant informed the OP the said matter and gave intimation claiming crop insurance as per norms which was shown under SL. No.5. Thereafter, the bank Authority did not provide any insurance money and was silent despite repeated request. The Complainant subsequently submitted application separately to the Branch Manager, Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Maruganj Branch, Cooch Behar and the Manager, Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Head Office, Cooch Behar on 26.12.17 and 17.01.18 respectively for insurance benefit. From the bank ledger Complainant found that Rs.2,809/- had already been deducted from his said account as insurance premium on 10.01.17. Thereafter the Manager Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Head Office, Cooch Behar issued a letter Ref. No.OPRS/42/2017-18/761/F-complain dated 18.01.18 with an intimation that Manager would take necessary arrangement for the same. But till the filing of the case nothing was done by the OP. So the present case has been filed after serving a legal notice on 19.02.18 which the OP received on 20.02.18 but did not reply to the said notice. The said activities of the OP bank tantamount to deficiency in service for which the cause of action arose on 07.02.15 and on other dates. The Complainant claimed for an award for Rs.25,000/- towards mental pain and agony, Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of proceedings.
The O.Ps defended the case by contesting with filing written version. The OP denied each and every allegations of the complaint and made out a positive defence case to the effect that as per list of the borrower whose insurance premium were debited for crop insurance during September, 2014 to January, 2015, no insurance coverage was allowed by AIC, Kolkata under NAIS for that particular period to any farmer whose cultivated land comes under the jurisdiction of Maruganj Gram Panchyat, Tufanganj-I, Cooch Behar. The Complainant has no locus-standi to file the case. The OP therefore claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
This specific allegation and its denial in the form of complaint and written version demands for thorough discussion and findings on the following points in issue.
Points for determination
- Whether the present case is legally maintainable or not?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
It is the admitted fact that the Complainant took loan from the OP bank for production of potatoes against payment of insurance premium for any loss for natural calamity or any reasons. Thus the relation between the Complainant and the OP comes within the purview of the CP Act to entertain the case.
Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in affirmative and decided on behalf of the Complainant.
Point Nos.2 & 3.
Both the points are very closely interlinked with each other and these are taken up together for convenience and brevity of discussion.
The OP did not deny this specific case of the Complainant that the Complainant took a KC loan of Rs.50,000/- from the OP bank on 14.11.14 against which the O.P. No.1 bank deducted Rs.2,182/- for crop insurance in Rabi seasons 2015-16.
It is the further case of the Complainant that during the said season the potato produce was damaged due to natural calamity. As per clause-18.1 of Crop Insurance Regulation it is categorically included under point-E inter alia that all farmers (Both loanee and non-loanee irrespective of their size of holdings) including share cropper, tenant farmers growing insurable crops covered. Thus the Complainant is proved to have been covered under the said crop insurance. The Complainant categorically pleaded about the said putrefaction/ rottenness due to natural calamity. The OP did not deny the said specific pleading of the Complainant. On the contrary it is the defence case that as per list of the borrower whose insurance premium were debited for crop insurance during September, 2014 to January, 2015, no insurance coverage was allowed by AIC, Kolkata under NAIS for that particular period to any farmers whose cultivated land comes under jurisdiction of Maruganj Gram Panchyat, Thfanganj-I, Cooch Behar.
After perusing documentary evidence like Annexure-A it is found that the Complainant was allowed the Kishan Credit Card scheme benefit. As per clause-18.1 all notified crops to be covered under the crop insurance. As per clause-18.2 the shift of insurance coverage inter alia under point-5 provides for that all farmers including loanee or non-loanee are covered under the scheme. The Complainant is accordingly covered under the said scheme.
The Complainant also adduced specific evidence by swearing evidence on affidavit inter alia that during relevant period his crops were damaged due to natural calamity.
The OP could not deny that fact nor did they cross-examine the Complainant on that point by means of putting any question in the form of interrogatories against the specific oral evidence of loss suffered by him.
After perusing the defence case and the evidence it transpires that the OP took the defence plea that no insurance coverage was allowed by AIC, Kolkata under NAIS for that particular period to any farmers whose cultivated land comes under jurisdiction of Maruganj Gram Panchyat, Tufanganj-I, Cooch Behar.
The OP could not prove any document to establish that AIC, Kolkata under NAIS passed any specific order under which the claim of the Complainant is liable to be rejected.
It is the settled position of law that burden of proof of a case mainly lies upon the Complainant but the Evidence Act also suggests that the said onus shifts from time to time. Since the Complainant discharged his onus to prove that his land was covered under the insurance scheme against his loan for the particular period, so the onus is shifted upon the OP to establish that as per the order of AIC, Kolkata under NAIS the claim of the Complainant was not covered.
The OP could not prove any document to prove that the land of the Complainant against which insurance for loss on natural calamity is situated outside the jurisdiction of Maruganj Gram Panchayat, Tufanganj-I, Cooch Behar.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that banks usually just implement the Government scheme and as such it has no vicarious liability to compensate the Complainant. It is the project of Government policy which is implemented through bank only.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued against the said plea that it is the OP bank through which the loan was sanctioned and the benefit of insurance ought to have been granted. He further argued that despite several reminder and legal notice the OP remained silent and did not reply against any of those correspondences.
Annexure-C is a letter of complaint submitted by the Complainant to the OP bank on 26.12.17 through which he requested for providing him the insurance money. In the same way he also submitted another letter on 17.01.18 which was acknowledged by the OP bank. In the said letter dated 18.01.18 issued by the OP bank Senior Manager OP, RS Head Office, Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank issued to the Complainant being Annexure-D wherein it is stated inter alia that the matter has already been taken up with the concerned Branch for early redressal and appropriate action with extending thanks. Thus the said letter Annexure-D clearly reveals that the complaint of the Complainant was actually accepted with an assurance for redressal of his grievance. Therefore the defence plea that OP bank has nothing to do with the said claim does not hold good and is not established.
Annexure-E is a legal notice which was served upon the OP bank but the letter did not reply to it which means that there was no sufficient ground to defy the allegation labelled against the OP through that legal notice.
Thus after assessing the entire evidence in the case record and observation made in the foregoing paragraph, reasonable inference is drawn that the case of the Complainant stands proved up to the hilt. The refusal to allow the insurance benefit in the manner as stated herein above tantamounts to deficiency in service which requires to be compensated.
In the result both the Point Nos. 2 & 3 are answered positively on behalf of the Complainant.
Consequently, the complaint case succeeds on contest.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/23/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The Complainant do get an award for the said crop insurance money, Rs.15,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.15,000/- for mental pain and agony.
The O.Ps bank are directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- plus the actual crop insurance money to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the award failing which the OP shall pay an interest @ 6% per annum against the awarded money from the date of passing the Final Order till the date of its realisation.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Note the Trial Register.
Dictated and corrected by me.