Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/1215

AGRICULTURE INSU.CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUBEER BUKHARIYA - Opp.Party(s)

SH.R.TIWARI

02 May 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1215 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 28.05.2019 passed in C.C.No.114/2017 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO.LTD.

THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER,

REGIONAL OFFICE, LIC OF INDIA,

CENTRAL ZONE, JEEWAN SHIKHA,

60-B, NORTH BLOCK, FIRST FLOOR,

HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                       ….           APPELLANT.

 

                       Versus

 

1. SUBIR BUKHARYA.

    S/O SHRI SIDHARTH BUKHARYA,

    R/O VILLAGE-NAUGAON, TEHSIL-BINA,

    DISTRICT-SAGAR (M.P.)

 

2. STATE BANK OF INDIA,

    THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

    SARVODA CHOWK, TEHSIL-BINA,

    DISTRICT-SAGAR (M.P.)                                                                           ….           RESPONDENT.                                

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

           None for the respondent no.1.

           Shri Vijay Shahani, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

          

 

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 02.05.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the opposite party no.2/appellant-Agriculture Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company’) is directed against the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short ‘District

-2-

Commission’) in C.C.No.114/2017, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of agricultural land situated in village-Naugaon, patwari halka no.50/23 and in village-Mevli, patwari halka no.57.  On 07.04.2015, the complainant had obtained loan for a sum of Rs.2,44,500/- for soyabean crop from the opposite party no.1/respondent no.2-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘bank’). The bank deducted premium amount of Rs.4,235/- towards insurance of his Kharif crop. It is alleged that the crops of the farmers in the entire area were destroyed and all of them received crop insurance claim amount. But the insurance company did not pay the crop insurance claim to the complainant. Therefore alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties-insurance company and the bank, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party no.1-bank in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the premium of Rs.4,235/- was deducted from the complainant’s account with respect to sanctioned loan amount for Kharif crop i.e. Rs.98,080/- and the same was forwarded to the insurance company on 06.10.2015. The insurance company sends the compensation amount along with claim statement to the bank and on that basis, the bank pays the

-3-

amount to the account holders. There is no role of bank in fixing the claim amount.  The claim statement for Kharif-2015 crop sent by the insurance company does not bear mention of village Naugaon & Mevli, where the complainant’s agricultural land is situated.  Therefore, the claim amount was not paid to him. It is further submitted that the responsibility, if any, with regard to payment of insurance claim lies with the insurance company and the bank is not liable.  

4.                The opposite party no.2-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that as per scheme, there was no shortfall observed in the soyabean crop in village-Naugaon, situated in patwari halka no.50. Therefore, no compensation is payable in aforesaid regard. The insurance company had already paid insurance claim amount of Rs.83,77,4087.71/- on 24.11.2016 via RTGS to the bank towards claim for crop insurance. The insurance company is not liable to pay any further amount. There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party no.2-insurance company to pay Rs.20,304/- to the complainant towards damages caused to the crop situated in patwari halka no.57. In addition, compensation of Rs.5,000/- with another sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs is also awarded. It is further directed that the aforesaid

-4-

amount be paid within one month, failing which the entire amount as aforesaid shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint, till payment.

6.                Heard.  Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the District Commission has given a finding with regard to the fact that no shortfall was observed in soyabean 2015 kharif crop in village-Naugaon, situated in patwari halka no.50, where the complainant’s land is situated. The complainant had also alleged that his crop situated in village-Mevli, was insured under patwari halka no.57.  He argued that the bank has not categorically specified with regard to the fact that the complainant’s crop was insured under the patwari halka no. 56 or 57. The declaration form sent by the bank also does not specify existence of complainant’s crop under patwari halka no. 57. Learned counsel referring to an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with documents, stated that the insurance company had already paid insurance claim amount with respect to patwari halka nos.50, 56 & 57 and information from the bank was sought with regard to the complainant’s agricultural land alleged to be situated in patwari halka no. 57, but no response was received.  He argued that on above basis, the impugned order passed by the District Commission is unsustainable.

 

-5-

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-bank reiterated that the bank had sent premium amount to the insurance company and the responsibility regarding payment of claim if any, rests with the insurance company.

9.                On going through the impugned order we observe that the District Commission has given a categorical finding to the effect that no shortfall was observed in the soyabean kharif crop for the year 2015, in village Naugaon situated in patwari halka no.50. The District Commission has also observed that there is no mention of village Mevli in the claim statement sent by the insurance company to the bank in relation to patwari halka no.57.  Even then, the District Commission assuming the complainant’s agricultural land to be situated in patwari halka no.57, has awarded compensation to him in accordance with the shortfall observed in soyabean kharif crop for the year 2015 in patwari halka no.57. From the documents presented along with application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC by the insurance company, it comes to our notice that the patwari halka no. in which the complainant’s agricultural land is situated, was not confirmed.

10.              In view of the aforesaid discrepancy and in the interest of justice we deem it appropriate that the matter be remanded back to the District

 

-6-

Commission for decision afresh. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside.

11.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 05.06.2023.

12.              Record of the case be sent to the District Commission, at the earliest. Application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with documents be also sent to the District Commission, with the record and copies be retained in the appeal.

13.              Parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence in support of their respective contentions, as and when directed by the District Commission, in the specified time frame.

14.              The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.

15.              Needless to mention that observations made hereinabove shall not come in way of the District Commission, while deciding the case.

16.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of.  No order as to costs.

 

              (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)          (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                                 PRESIDENT                                         MEMBER