DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No. 7 of 2013
Ramesh Kumar Mishra, S/o. Narasingha Mishra, aged about 42 years, R/o. village – Manikpur, P.O. /P.S. Birmaharajpur, District – Subarnapur.
………… Complainant
Vrs.
1. The Branch Manager, Utkal Gramya Bank, Birmaharajpur, At/P.O./P.S. Birmaharajpur, District - Subarnapur
2. The General Manager, G.I.C. Plot No.7, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar, District – Khurda, Pin-751007.
…… Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri R. Agrawal
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 …………. Sri B.C.Panda
Present
1. Sri S.C.Nayak, President
2. Smt. S.Mishra Lady Member
Date of Judgment Dt.08.02.2016
J U D G M E N T
By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.
This is complainant’s case alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No.1, the Branch Manager, U.G.B., Birmaharajpur Branch, District - Subarnapur
The case of the complainant is that he is owner in possession of land comprising Ac.3.150 dec. at Mouza – Mursundhi and Ac.2.800 dec. at Mouza – Mendamal measuring total area Ac.5.590 dec. The Govt. of India has started comprehensive crop insurance scheme to compensate the cultivators in the event of crop loss. As per the scheme the O.P. No.1 is authorized to collect the premium from cultivators and send it to O.P. No.2 through his Nodal agency in consolidated format stating the name of farmers and other details.
It is the case of the complainant that in case of cultivators the O.P. No.2 has to indemnify the loss with reference to area insured and the same has to be paid to O.P. No.1 through his nodal agency and the O.P. No.1 has to disburse the amount to the cultivators.
The complainant alleged that during Khariff 2011 he availed loan amounting to Rs.50,000/- from the Bank of O.P. No.1 and the bank has deducted insurance premium standing on an area of Ac.5.590 dec. situated at Mouza – Mrusundhi and Mendamal under comprehensive crop insurance scheme.
-: 2 :-
The complainant alleged that in the same year the entire crop of the complainant and other farmers of Mrusundhi and Hilung Panchayat were completely damaged. It is the case of the complainant that the O.P. No.2 has already released the compensation amounts as per crop damage to O.P. No.1 through its nodal agency.
It is the further case of the complainant that he has to get Rs.46,975/- as compensation. But the O.P. No.1 has only deposited Rs.6,454/- in the S.B. account of complainant.
The complainant alleged that inspite of request the O.P. No.1 has neither paid the actual compensation nor given any reason for non payment of the said amount. Hence the complainant has prayed that the O.P. No.1 be directed to pay the actual compensation of Rs.46,975/- alongwith compensation of Rs.40,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.5000/-.
The O.P. No.1 filed version. According to him the complainant has filed the R.O.R. of holding No.590/157 of Mouza – Mendamal where he had availed K.C.C. loan from O.P. No.1 and lands of Mrusundhi has not been filed by the complainant. According to this O.P. the complainant has insured the paddy crops of an area of Ac.2.800 dec. of Mouza – Mendamal which comes under Hilung G.P. which is not declared as crop loss during Khariff 2011.
This O.P. avers that the complainant is not entitled to any damage for crop loss . He further avers that at the time of posting by transaction an amount of Rs.6,454/- has been wrongly deposited in the S.B. account of the complainant.
Hence he has prayed that as he has not committed any deficiency of service, this complaint case be dismissed.
The O.P. No.2 has given a very comprehensive and detailed version. The gist of his version is that crop loss is decided as per the scheme procedure only and not by any other method, which is on the basis of yield data based on minimum four number of crop experiment at G.P. level. The individual farmer is not required to lodge any claim and crop losses if at all admissible through the above described procedure are released to the concerned Banks automatically. It is the further case of this O.P. that in case a farmer deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to the errors/omissions/commissions of the Nodal bank/Branch/P.A.C.S. the concerned institutions only shall make good all such losses as per the relevant clause of the scheme of N.A.I.S (Annexure-II) filed alongwith the written version. Hence this O.P. prays that the complaint case be dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, counsel for the O.P. No.1 and perused the materials on records. The O.P. No.2 remained absent during hearing. From the pleadings of the parties, submissions made during hearing the moot question that requires determination by the Forum is :- “ Has there been deficiency of service by the O.Ps. ? ”
-: 3 :-
At the outset, it must be mentioned that the complainant has not claimed any relief against the O.P. No.2. In para 6 of the complaint petition the complainant has admitted that the O.P. No.2 has already released the compensation amount as per crop damaged report in consolidated amount to the O.P. No.1 through its Nodal agency. The O.P. No.2 has already performed his duties and as such we have not found any deficiency on his part.
Now it is to be seen whether there has been deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No.1 or not. The complainant has alleged that he has applied for loan on the lands of village Mrusundhi and as such he is entitled to compensation for crop damage. The O.P. No.1 has denied the same.
The O.P. No.1 has filed the letter No. Adv./02 dt.28.2.2016 of the B.M., S.B.I., Mrusundhi. We have perused the letters. From, this letters it is ascertained that the complainant has availed loan on his land of village Mrusundhi and Mendamal on dt.17.10.2011 vide Loan account No.31991566187. We have also perused the letter of Secretary, Mrusundhi Service Co-operative Societies dt.20.2.2013. From this letter it is ascertained that the complainant is a K.C.C. borrower of the said society and he has availed crop insurance of Rs.35,517/- during Khariff 2011. So when the complainant has obtained crop loan from the S.B.I., B.M.Pur and he has obtained crop insurance during kharif 2011 from Mrusuindhi S.C.S. for the year 2011 Khariff, we fail to understand how he will get crop insurance benefit from the Bank of O.P. No.1 for the year 2011 Khariff.
Further more, it was the duty of the complainant to prove that he availed crop loan for the year 2011 khariff from the bank of O.P. No.1 by cogent and convincing evidence, which he failed to do.
In the aforesaid premises we are left with no option but to dismiss the complaint. In the result, this complaint case is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.
Dated the 8th day of February 2016
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Smt. S.Mishra Sri S.C. Nayak
Lady Member President
Dt.08.02.2016 Dt.08.02.2016
