Lokachandra Chandrakar - Complainant(s)


Branch Manager, Bhawanipatna, Central Co-operative Bank LTD, Branch-Khariar Road - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.Bag & Associates

03 Feb 2024


Complaint Case No. CC/22/2019
( Date of Filing : 18 Apr 2019 )
1. Lokachandra Chandrakar
At/Po-Biromal, Ps-Jonk, Dist-Nuapada
1. Branch Manager, Bhawanipatna, Central Co-operative Bank LTD, Branch-Khariar Road
At/Po-Khariar Road, Ps-Jonk, Dist-Nuapada
2. National Insurance Company Ltd, Bhubaneswar
Division office-I, IDCO Towers, 4th Floor, Rupali Square, Janpath Road, Bhubaneswar,751001
3. Agriculture Insurance Company Limited, Bhubaneswar
Plot No.87, Janpath , Bhubaneswar, 751007
 HON'BLE MR. Purna Chandra Mishra PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sudhakar Senapothi MEMBER
Dated : 03 Feb 2024
Final Order / Judgement

Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.  

Complainant Lokachandra Chandrakar @ Lokanath Chandrakar has filed this case u/s 12 of CP Act-1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for non-payment of his insurance claim arising out of damage of crop and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 2,14,000/- with interest and to pay cost and compensation of Rs. 2,00000/- under different heads.

  1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant has insured his paddy crops over the agricultural land in village Birumal recorded in his name under Khatian No. 519 for the Kharif Season-2017 for which he has paid the insurance premium of Rs. 4280/- to OP No. 2 who happens to be the Insurance Company on 30.07.2017 vide Transaction No. JSBI5537386449. The state of Odisha declared village Birumal in Nuapada District to be drought affected and accordingly, the other villagers have availed their crop insurance benefit. But even though the complainant has paid the premium, his insurance benefit was not paid and he requested the OP No. 1 time and again to take necessary action for realization of appropriate insurance benefit. He is entitled to get crop insurance benefit to the tune of Rs. 2,14,000/-. But, the OPs have caused harassment to him for which he has filed this case before the Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
  2.           After receipt of notice, the OP No. 3 appeared through his Advocate and filed written statement. The OP No. 1 and 2 even though appeared through their Advocates in spite of several adjournments granted to them, they did not file their written statements nor challenged the allegations of the complainant in any manner. Therefore, this Commission proceeded to dispose of the case on its own merit.
  3.           The OP No. 3 in his written statement stated that he is not the insurance company to implement the PMFBY scheme in the district of Nuapada and National Insurance Company who has been entrusted with the task of insuring the crop in the district of Nuapada vide Odisha Government Notification No. 4738 dt. 31.05.2017. so, he prayed for dismissal of the case against him.


  1.           The complainant in support of his case has filed the copy of the ROR in Khata No. 519 of village Biramal, copy of his Adhar card, copy of the premium details paid to the OP No. 2 in support of his case. The OPs have not filed any document in support of their case. It is seen from the documents filed by the complainant that he has paid a sum of Rs. 4280/- towards the insurance premium to the OP No. 2.


  1.           It is settled principle of law that where the OPs appeared but did not challenge the allegations raised against them, it is deemed to have been admitted by them. In the instant case, the OPs appeared through their Advocates but did not challenge the allegations raised against them and the claims made against them in any manner. So, we come to the conclusion that the claim of the complainant is well admitted by the OP No. 1 and 2.
  2.           Since the premium has been paid to OP No. 2, he is squarely responsible for non-payment of the insurance claim to the complainant and is liable to pay the insurance claim of the complainant. Since the OP No. 2 received the premium but did not pay the dues thereby caused deficiency and harassment to the complainant and hence the order.


The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the OP No. 2 and dismissed against OP No. 1 and 3. The OP No. 2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,14,000/- to the complainant towards the insurance benefit arising out of loss of crop with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of case i.e. 01.01.2018 till it is actually paid to the complainant. The OP No. 2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only towards compensation for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order failing which interest @ 12% shall be charged on the amount of cost and compensation from the date of order till its compliance.  

[HON'BLE MR. Purna Chandra Mishra]
[HON'BLE MR. Sudhakar Senapothi]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.