Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                      Complainant Ambika Prasad Trivedi has filed this case u/s 12 of the CP Act-1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties for non-payment of his crop insurance amount in spite of his repeated approaches and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to pay his crop insurance claim along with up-to-date interest and compensation.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant had insured his paddy crops with OP No. 3 on payment of Rs. 1030/- as premium. There was crop failure in the area and other cultivators received their compensation. But, the complainant was not paid his insurance claim for which he filed this case before this Forum feeling harassed by the conduct of the Opposite Parties.

2.           After receipt of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. Even though OP No.1 and 2 appeared, they preferred not to file any written version and OP No. 3 filed his written version.

3.           OP No. 3 in his written version stated that the premium has been credited to their account as ascertained from their record. But the reason for rejecting the policy is that the petitioner is a loanee farmer and has insured through BCC Bank, Khariar. The complainant had obtained paddy crop loan of 1 hectare of land. The petitioner’s land is in Samarsing GP under Komna Block. Since there was no publication in the District Gazetee about the loss of crop, the complainant was not paid insurance claim and therefore, he has no cause of action to file this case against the OP No. 3 and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the case with cost.

4.           The only point relating to this case is whether the complainant is entitled to get the crop insurance or not ?

The OP No. 3 has specifically pleaded in Para-5 of the complaint petition that the policy of the complainant has been rejected as he is a loanee farmer and there is no notification in the District Gazette regarding loss of crop in the area. The reply of OP No. 3 is self contradictory. The OP states that they have rejected the policy on the one hand and on the other hand states that the complainant is not entitled for the relief since there was no publication in the District Gazette about the loss of crop. Both the statements are self-contradictory and it appears that the OP No. 3 has filed written version in a very half hazard and careless manner. If the policy was rejected, then the question of payment of claim does not arise and if the claim has been rejected, then there was a policy and the statement of the OP No. 3 as stated in Para-5 that the policy was rejected is wrong. So, it is not possible from the self-contradictory written statement of OP No. 3 to ascertain as to which plea taken by him is correct.

5.           It is seen from the documents filed by the complainant that a sum of Rs. 1030/- has been deducted from his Bank Account for payment to the Insurance Company which is well admitted by the Insurance Company in Para-5 of the written statement. There is nothing on record to show that the insurance application of the complainant has been rejected and his premium has been return back. So, the plea taken by OP No. 3 that his policy was rejected is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

6.           Coming to the next plea of OP No. 3 is that the land of the complainant has not been notified in the list of villages/GPs which has loss of crop. Copy of such notification has not been filed by the OP No. 3 to show that there was no loss of crop in the area. In absence of document or other evidence, the plea of OP No.3 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
7.           It is clear from the above discussion that the OP No. 3 has insured the crop of the complainant and there is no specific pleading that the other farmers of the area have not been paid their crop insurance except the petitioner. In absence of any specific denial, it is deemed that the OP has admitted this allegation and therefore, we feel there is force in the allegation on the complainant and the OP No. 3 is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss sustained by him and hence the order.

O R D E R

          The complaint petition is allowed against OP No. 3 and dismissed against OP No. 1 and 2. The OP No. 3 is made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The OP No. 3 is directed to pay the cost of loss of crop @ at which other farmers of the village have been paid for one hectare of land with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the case till it is actually paid to the complainant. The OP No.3 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/-(twenty thousand) only as compensation towards deficiency of service and harassment and a sum of Rs. 5000/-(five thousand) only towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of order failing which the order as to cost and compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till it is actually paid to the complainant.