Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 10-06-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Paschim Medinipur in C.C. No. 21/2016.
Brief facts of the complaint case are that the Complainant took Paddy loan for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- from the OP on 26-07-2013. In the wake of natural calamity, the Complainant suffered huge loss in respect of his paddy crop. Allegedly, although the Insurance Company released insurance money to indemnify the loss suffered by affected farmers, the Complainant was deprived of such benefit, thanks to the inaction of the OP. Hence, the complaint.
By submitting WV, it is stated by the OP that it did not receive any circular from the Government about subsidy or any sort of insurance coverage in respect of the borrowers of cash credit loan. It is further stated that no Government subsidy (40%) has been given in favour of the Complainant. Therefore, there was no deficiency on its part.
Decision with reasons
Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
On a reference to the impugned order, it transpires that the instant complaint was dismissed primarily on the ground that the Complainant could not furnish any cogent documentary proof to show that the Government gave any such subsidy in respect of the said loan of the Appellant/Complainant.
However, on going through the record, it appears that Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. vide its letter dated 04-07-2016 confirmed that compensation amount meant for the affected farmers of Medinipur district for the Khariff Season 2013 had already been disbursed through Nodal banks. The said Insurance Company further confirmed that an amount of Rs. 19,23,926.50 was transferred to the Medinipur branch of UCO Bank (Nodal bank) on 14-09-2015 as subsidy amount for the Khariff Season 2013.
In this respect, it is stated by the Appellant that for the purpose of taking ‘Kisan Credit Card’ (KCC) loan, insurance is must, whose premium is paid by the Government of West Bengal. It is further alleged that the Respondent bank did not act to the true spirit of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme implemented by the Govt. of India and as such, it cannot evade due liability for the loss suffered by the Appellant.
Before discussing the issue, let us append below some of the salient features of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS) or Rastriya Krishi Bima Yojana, which is self-explanatory:
“The Scheme covers following groups of farmers:
1.On a compulsory basis: All farmers growing notified crops and availing Seasonal Agricultural Operations (SAO) loans from Financial Institutions, i.e., Loanee Farmers.
2.On a voluntary basis: All other farmers growing notified crops (Non-Loanee farmers) who opt for the Scheme.
Collection of Proposals and Insurance Charges:
(a) Loanee farmers (Compulsory coverage)
……Whenever a bank disburses loan for an insurable crop, additional loans towards insurance charges shall also be granted. The disbursing branch shall prepare a statement of monthly crop-wise and defined area-wise details of crop insurance with insurance charges, and remit the same to it’s Nodal branch within 15th day of the next month.
The Nodal Branch, in turn, shall consolidate these statements from the branches under it, and forward the same to the IA along with a draft for the insurance charges in accordance with monthly cut-off dates fixed.…..
9(a)Role & responsibilities of Financial Institutions (FIs)
…….
Each scheduled Commercial Bank shall with concurrence of Implementing Agency (IA) fix Nodal Points which would deal with IA on behalf of branches in the division/district/state…..
Nodal points would be designated for implementation and these banks would attend to the following functions:
(1)On receipt of the communication on notification of crops and areas from the State govt./UT, the Nodal Banks will communicate the same to the branch offices under their control.
(2)The FIs would advance additional loan to Loanee farmers to meet requirement of Insurance charges/premium as applicable upto extent of Crop loan.
(3)Each such Nodal point would submit crop-wise, defined area-wise, monthly Crop Insurance Declarations to the Office of the IA, in the prescribed format, along with insurance charges payable on all crop loans coming under the purview of the Scheme in case of Loanee farmers and based on Proposals received in case of other farmers.
(4)The Apex FIs shall issue appropriate instructions to Nodal banks as well as crop loan disbursing branches to ensure smooth functioning of the Scheme.
(5)For insurable crop loans disbursed under Kissan Credit Card (KCC), the FIs shall maintain all controls and records as required under the Scheme.
Other Responsibilities of FIs will be:
- To educate the farmers on the Scheme features.
- To guide the farmers in filing the proposal forms and collecting the required documents.
- Following the guidelines while disbursing crop loans and ensuring proper end-use of loan disbursed.
- To prepare the consolidated statements for Loanee and Non-Loanee members, forwarding the same to the branch along with premium amount.
- Maintaining the records of proposal forms, other relevant documents, statements for the purpose of verification by the district committee or representative of the insurer.
Special conditions for FIs/Nodal Banks/Loan Disbursing Points
1.FIs will submit Crop Insurance Declarations to IA on monthly basis, where sum insured is on the basis of amount of loan disbursed and within one month time from cut-off date for receipt of proposals, where sum insured is on scale of finance or any other basis.
2.Claims received by Nodal points, will be remitted to individual branches/PACs with all particulars within seven days and these branches/PACs will in turn credit the A/cs of beneficiary farmers within seven days. The list of beneficiary farmers with claim amount will be displayed by the branch/PACs.
3…….The IA will have access to all relevant records/lodgers at the Nodal point/Branch/PACs at all times.
4……..
5.In case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the Scheme due to errors/omissions/commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACs, the concerned institution only shall make good all such losses”.
The Respondent denied receiving any circular from the Govt. of West Bengal about the aforesaid Scheme. It is, however, clear from the aforesaid letter of the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. that Medinipur branch of the Respondent Bank acted as a Nodal Bank for proper implementation of the Scheme and given that the benefit under the NAIS had been provided to five farmers for that particular Khariff Season, it is absolutely clear that the State Government did notify the concerned authorities, including the Medinipur branch (Nodal Bank) of the Respondent bank about this Scheme. Against this backdrop, whether the said Nodal bank apprised the Respondent about the said scheme or not, it is entirely an internal matter of the branches concerned. Under any circumstances, an eligible beneficiary cannot be deprived of his legitimate due, thanks to the laches on the part of the FIs.
Above all, it is to be kept in mind that NAIS is a decade old Scheme being introduced by the Government of India which has been renewed/implemented/introduced every year uninterruptedly. It is unbelievable that despite being a disbursing bank of KCC loan, the Respondent was unaware of the salient features of NAIS. In any case, since it has been made quite clear under the NAIS that in case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the Scheme due to errors/omissions/commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACs, the concerned institution only shall make good all such losses, the Respondent must own up due responsibility and make good the loss suffered by the Appellant.
The Appeal, thus, succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the Appeal stands allowed on contest with cost for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The Respondent shall credit, within 45 days from this day, a sum of Rs. 24,000/- to the loan account of the Appellant together with simple interest @ 9% p.a. over this amount from the date of filing of the complaint before the Ld. District Forum till full and final payment is made. The impugned order is hereby set aside.
