Date of filing :- 18/03/2015.
Date of Order:- 21/09/2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 16 of 2015
Jugal Dash, son of late Pabitra Dash, aged about 41(forty one) years, Occupation- Cultivation, R/o/At/P.o. Khuntpali, P.s./Tahasil and District-Bargarh
..... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India (A.D.B.) Branch Bargarh, the branch office of which situates at Bargarh, At/P.o./P.s./Tahasil and Dist. Bargarh.
The Regional Manager Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Regional Office-7 Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar-751007, Dist. Khordha.
..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri S.P. Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri D.D. Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri A.K. Dash, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.21/07/2016 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri P.K. Dash, Member:-
The complaint pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986. The gist of the complaint is pen down here under.
The Complainant is a customer as well as borrower of Opposite Party No.1(one) i.e. the State Bank of India (ADB) branch Bargarh. The Opposite Party No.2(two) i.e. The Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd, Bhubaneswar implement the crop insurance scheme i.e. Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana/National Agricultural Insurance Scheme in the State of Odisha.
That in the year 2013 during The Kharif crop the Complainant was sanctioned with an agricultural loan of Rs.80,000/-(Rupees eighty thousand)only by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and an insurance amount was also deducted by the Opposite Party No.1(one) from the said loan amount which was not remitted to the Opposite Party No.2(two) company. The super cyclone phyline damaged the Khariff crop 2013 for which 48.95% crop failure was declared by the Opposite Party No.2(two) and in the scheme the Complainant was entitled to get Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only as of crop failure. For the same right and entitlement, the Complainant paid several visits to the Opposite Party No.1(one) bank but lastly in February-2015 due to unpleasant behavior of Opposite Party No.1(one) the Complainant was compelled to lodge consumer complaint against the Opposite Parties.
That for non remission of insurance premium to the Opposite Party No.2(two) by the Opposite Party No.1(one) bank, the Complainant failed to get the crop insurance benefit amounting to Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only which is a service deficiency by the Opposite Party No.1(one) towards the Complainant and for such act of Opposite Party No.1(one), the Complainant suffered both physical and mental agony for which his daily pursuits disturbed and the compensation for which modestly calculated at Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only.
That for such deficiency in rendering service the Complaint has sought for a direction of the Forum, against the Opposite Party No.1(one) under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 to award Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only towards crop insurance benefit, compensation of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only for both physical and mental agony besides costs and any other fit and equitable relief deemed just.
That the Complainant in support of his contention relies upon the Xerox Copies of following documents.
Copy of pass book bearing Account No. 33621275171 stand in the name of Complainant (four sheets)
After hearing on admission, a primafacie case is found and admitted the Complaint Being summoned both the Opposite Parties appeared through their counsels and filed
their respective versions denying allegations of the complaint.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) in its version contends that the Complainant delivered/issued a letter to the Opposite Party No.1(one) to waive out his crop insurance and by virtue of his (Complainant's) such instruction no insurance premium was deducted from Complainant's account and his crop was not insured. That all other allegations, along with the allegation of deficiency in service is denied by the Opposite Party No.1(one).
The Opposite Party No.1(one) prays before the Forum to dismiss the vexatious complaint against him with heavy cost.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) in support of his case relies upon the following documents.
Account statement of the complainant (one sheet)
Letter issued by the Complainant in favour of Opposite Party No.1(one) regarding waving of crop loan (one sheet)
Copy of Account statement of one Adikanda Padhan bearing Account No. 31300992576.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) in its version contends that this Opposite Party is a Company implementing the Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana (RKBY) on behalf of the Central Govt. and the State Govt. The Govt. of India introduced country wide Crop Insurance Scheme “RKBY” (RKBY/NAIS Scheme) from Rabi 1999-2000 season where in the participation of the state is voluntary. The Govt. of Odisha has implemented the RKBY Scheme since 1999-2000 season. That the paddy along with other agricultural products were notified to be insured for Kharif-2013 by the notification of Govt of Odisha.
Further the version of Opposite Party No.2(two) contends the elaborate provisions and implementation of the RKBY/NAIS Scheme by different agencies. That as per the scheme provision farmers availing crop loans for the notified crop from the Commercial Banks, Regional Rural Banks and District Co-operative Banks are compulsorily covered and for Non Loanee farmers the scheme is optional. That as per the scheme provision for Kharif-2013 season, claim was paid to Khuntpali Gram Panchayat @ 48.95% (approx) to 101(one hundred one) numbers of loanee farmers. This Opposite Party in its version says whether the insurance premium was deducted or not at the time of loan sanctioning by the Opposite Party No.1(one) is beyond his knowledge as per the provision of the scheme.
Further version of Opposite Party No.2(two) contends that as per the special condition for financial institution/ Nodal Bank/ Loan disbursing points described under the Role and Responsibilities of financial institutions “ In case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to error/omission/commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACS the concerned institutions only shall make good all such loses and as per the Complaint this Opposite Party has not received the crop insurance premium of the Complainant and is no way liable for the claim.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) prays the forum to dismiss the Complaint against him stating to have no negligence or deficiency on its part for settlement of the claim.
Having gone through the entire case record, pleadings of the parties and memo of argument filed by the Complainant and hearing of the case from the counsels of the parties.
The facts which are admitted by the parties are :-
The Complainant is a Consumer and a borrower of Opposite Party No.1(one).
The Crop insurance premium for Kharif - 2013 was not remitted to the Opposite Party No.2(two) by the Opposite Party No.1(one).
The Complainant was devoid of getting the crop insurance benefit for Kharif- 2013.
The facts which are admitted by the parties need not be proved.
Now the issues crop up for decision are :-
Is there any deficiency in service and whether the Opposite Parties are liable for the same ?
What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
Regarding issue No.1(one), the pass book bearing No. 33621275171 stand in the name of the Complainant in the SBI (ADB) branch Bargarh which clearly reveals the Crop insurance premium and for the year 2008, 2009 (both the Crop), 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014-2015 were debited by the Opposite Party No.1(one). Hence the Complainant was a loanee farmer under the Opposite Party No.1(one) and as per the guide lines of RKBY/NAIS scheme the loanee farmers are compulsorily covered under the scheme. This fact is also supported by the Opposite Party No.2(two) in its version para-2(two).
But in the relevant year for the season Kharif- 2013, the crop insurance premium of Complainant was not deducted from his account by the Opposite Party No.1(one) unlike other years. The insurance premium for Kharif- 2013 was also not remitted by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Opposite Party No.2(two) which is categorically admitted by the Opposite Party No.1(one) in its version and the account statement of the Complainant also reveals the same and in rebuttal the Opposite Party No.1(one) the reason for not deducting the crop insurance premium for Kharif- 2013 and non remission of the said premium to the Opposite Party No.2(two) has filed one xerox copy of letter issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1(one) where in he has instructed the Opposite Party No.1(one) to waive his crop insurance as he was not interested to cover his crops under Crop insurance scheme (NAIS). This letter of Complainant is a piece of evidence upon whose evidenciary value the allegation of deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties totally rest.
This letter of Complainant even does not bear a date so also not with hand written of Complainant. To justify and to uphold the genuineness of the letter the Opposite Party No.1(one) could have filed an affidavit of the Complainant before the forum or even by virtue of a petition could have sought for the direction of the forum to examine the Complainant in this regard. But the Opposite Party No.1(one) has not opted for any mode. Rather during argument the counsel for Opposite Party No.1(one) stated one possible reason for why the Complainant has issued the letter for waiver of crop insurance that he (Complainant) might have insured the said crop for the said season Kharif- 2013 in other banks/ financial institution and might have taken the benefit of crop insurance there of. This logic of the Opposite Party No.1(one) could have been appreciated widely by the forum if evidence in this regard in any manner is brought before the forum by the O.P. No.1(one).
In the circumstance the letter of Complainant issued to the Opposite Party No.1(one) to waive the crop insurance for Kharif 2013 does not inspire the confidence of the forum to consider its authority and the reason for not deducting the crop insurance premium of Complaint for Kharif -2013 and for non remission of the same to the Opposite Party No.2(two). This obviously a deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Complainant as the guidelines and scheme of RKBY/NAIS prescribes compulsory coverage of insurance benefit to the loanee farmers and the nodal bank/branch ought to deduct the insurance premium and to remit the same to the insurance agency for insurance coverage of the crops. The Opposite Party No.2(two) is exonerated from the charges of deficiency in service to the Complainant because the Opposite Party No.1(one) has admitted to have not remitted the insurance premium to the Opposite Party No.2(two) for Kharif -2013 in its version and it is the law of insurance that no premium no insurance. The issue No.1(one) is answered as above.
So far as the Issue No.2(two) is concerned and specially when the authority of letter issued to the Opposite Party No.1(one) by the Complainant for waiving the crop insurance for Kharif- 2013 is not accepted by the forum and as per the guide lines and scheme of RKBY/NAIS the loanee farmers are compulsorily covered under the scheme for crop insurance benefit left. The Khuntpali Gram Panchayat of Bargarh block was also declared 48.95% of crop failure in Govt. Notification for Kharif- 2013. That Opposite Party No.2(two) in it's version para no.8(eight) has categorically mentioned that as per the point No.5(five) of the scheme for role and responsibilities of financial Institution in case a farmer is deprived of benefit under the scheme due to error/omission/commission of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACS, the concerned institution only shall make good all such loses. Here in the case in hand also the Opposite Party No.1(one) has committed error in not deducting crop insurance premium of the Complainant for Kharif-2013 season for its onwards remission to the Opposite Party No.2(two) for insurance coverage. Hence the Complainant is entitle for amount of crop insurance benefit declared for Kharif-2013 season.
With all paramount consideration of evidence and provisions of law in Consumer Protection Act-1986 the forum order as follows.
O R D E R
The Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay Rs. 39,160/-(Rupees thirty nine thousand one hundred sixty)only i.e. 48.95% of crop failure for the Kharif -2013 season to the Complainant alongwith a compensation towards mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only within one month from the Order, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry @12% interest per annum till the final payment of amount.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) is exonerated from the charges levelled against him by the Complainant.
The Complaint is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
I agree,
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
