DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 5th day of May, 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
C.D Case No. 59 of 2017
Sri Gurucharan Nayak
S/o: Adikanda Nayak
Vill/Po: Solampur
Ps: Bhandaripokhari
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. Chief Manager
State Bank of India, Sarasada Branch
At/Po: Sarasada
Ps: Bhandaripokhari
Dist: Bhadrak
2. Chief Manager
State Bank of India, Bhadrak Branch
At/Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
3. General Manager
National Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd
Plot No- 87, Satyanagar
Bhubaneswar
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant: Mr. Muzahid Akhtar khan
Advocate for the O.Ps 1 & 2: Mr. Jatikanta Nayak
Advocate for the OP No. 3: Mr. Amarendra Ku Panda
Date of hearing: 19.12.2017
Date of order: 05.05.2018
SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
The dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The complainant is a poor farmer earns his lively hood out of the scanty income generated from agriculture operation and in order to enhance productivity, he sought credit support from OP No. 1 under Kisan Credit Card Scheme. Accordingly with the positive indication of OP No. 1, complainant applied for a crop loan which was considered by OP No. 1 and sanctioned a sum of Rs 53,500/- on 31.07.2015. The said khariff crop for the year 2015 was insured under National Agriculture Insurance Company on realization of premium amount of Rs 2,540/- by debiting KCC loan account of the complainant on different dates. Unfortunately the khariff paddy crop for the year 2015 in Solampur GP got damaged due to natural calamities and the State Govt. in Revenue Dept. declared Solampur GP as affected GP and the farmers who had borrowed crop loan from different banks and financial institutions were entitled to crop loss compensation to the extent of 50% of loan borrowed for agriculture operation and accordingly the complainant was entitled to get the crop loss compensation proportionately. It is further added by the complainant that the other farmers of his village who had availed crop loan for khariff, 2015 have also availed the crop insurance benefit by way of crediting to their loan account which is not given to him as he is equally affected by the natural calamity. When the complainant heard the facts of crop insurance benefits from the farmers of his village, he rushed to the OP No. 1 bank to enquire about his benefits where the said OP orally assured to settle the claim within a fortnight or so but did not do anything positive in spite of several requests. The complainant, as an alternative, served notice upon OP No. 1 and 3 through his advocate requesting early settlement of the claim which was also not responded by OP No. 1 but OP No. 3 submitted a reply to the notice of the complainant stating the claim of the complainant is not pending with them and it is the bank concerned to settle the claim if not settled earlier. When OP No. 1 & 2 did not initiate any action to pay the legitimate claim, the complainant, finding no other alternative filed this dispute for adjudication with a prayer to issue direction to OP No. 1 & 3 for settlement of claim with cost and compensation.
O.Ps registered the claim and contested the case. OP No. 1 & 2 (here in after said as ‘OP Bank’) submitted written version in denying the entire allegation and stated all the allegations as made in complaint are false, untrue and illegal and liable to be dismissed.
OP No. 3 submitted written version through its advocate in stating the role, key functions and procedure of settlement of crop insurance claim in the event of any crop loss declared by the Govt. through notification. It is also clarified by the said OP that it would not have or require any details of individual farmers covered under NAIS. The declaration submitted by the nodal banks insurance unit-wise and crop-wise alone serves as the basis as per the scheme for computation of claim. It is further submitted by OP No. 3 that the implementation regarding the claims payment, it is the financing Branch of the Bank collects premium from the borrowing farmers and transmits the premium so collected along with list of farmers to the nodal office who in turn sends the consolidated insurance declaration to this OP designated in the Rastriya Krishi Beema Yojona as “Implementing Agency” stating the number of farmers, crop, season, year, Block and District of the insured area along with premium. Hence the answering OP does not have any scope to know the names of insured and belong to which area. It is also submitted that as per operational modalities of Financial Institution, “In case of a farmer deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/omissions/commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACS, the concerned institutions only shall make good of all such losses”. However finally OP No. 3 submitted in clarifying that as per RKVY Scheme, it is evident that there is no negligence and deficiency of service on part of OP No. 3 for a settlement of claim.
Gone through the complaint, written versions and other materials available on record and observed as detailed here under.
1. Admittedly the complainant is a Kissan Credit Card holder under OP No. 1 and had borrowed a crop loan of Rs 53, 500/- for seasonal Agriculture Operation, Khariff, 2015. It is also admitted by OP No. 1 as to the complainant is a borrower of its Branch and the khariff crop of Solampur GP for khariff, 2015 was damaged to the extent of 50%. Although the said OP has denied all the allegations made in the complaint but no where it has raised any objection about the complainant is not a borrower of its Branch and not objected/refused the entitlement of the complainant’s claim, rather admitted that this has happened due to oversight and agreed to settle the claim after receiving the direction from the Forum.
2. It is crystal clear from the written version that OP No. 3 is the designated “Implementing Agency” as provided in operational modalities of NAIS. Hence it had little scope to know the name of the borrower and to take initiative for settlement of the individual claim arose due to crop loss. It was the Financial Institution (Bank) from which the complainant availed crop loan for khariff- 2015 who is to take meticulous care for settlement of claim of the complainant. Since the OP No. 3 had no role to play at the end use stage and hence OP No. 3 is not found negligent and deficient in providing service. That apart the complainant has not raised any allegation against OP No. 3 in his complaint nor has uttered a single word in the process of hearing the case.
Finally, as it is admitted and assured during hearing by the OP Bank to settle the claim immediately after receipt of the order of this case as well as the OP Bank is found negligent in settlement of insurance claim and deficient in providing proper service to the complainant, the said OP is liable to pay the crop insurance claim amount to the complainant by way of crediting the same to his loan/SB account and the interest accrued on the loan matching to insurance claim amount from the date of his entitlement due till the date of settlement should be exempted. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against OP No. 1 & 2. OP No. 1 & 2 are directed to settle the insurance claim of the complainant and exempt interest on the loan matching to claim amount from the date of due till the date of crediting the insurance claim amount to the loan/SB account of the complainant. Further OP No. 1 is directed to pay cost of litigation of Rs 2000/- to the complainant in addition to payment of insurance claim. This order must be implemented within 30 days from the date of receipt of order.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 5th May, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
