Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

Complainant Rohit Kumar Behera has filed this case u/s 12 of CP Act-1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for not paying his insurance claim to him in spite of the insurance premium paid to them praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the crop insurance benefit of Rs. 1,39,315/- with interest along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on different heads.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 3,500/- on 13.07.2017 for payment of the crop insurance premium to insure his crops in SBI, Komna. The crop in village Palsipani got damaged up to 90%. The co-villagers received their insurance benefits and as the complainant did not get the insurance benefit, he approached the OP No. 1 and on inquiry came to know that the premium has neither been deducted nor debited to the Insurance Company. In spite of written complaints, the Ops did not respond for which he filed this case before this Forum for the reliefs as discussed in preceeding paragraph.
2.           After receipt of notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statements separately. The OP No. 1 in his written statement stated that the complainant has never submitted any proposal to insure his crops and they have got no authority to get any money without proper application form and application of withdrawal of money from his account. Since there was no application from the side of the complainant, they have not deducted any amount and the question of remittance to any 3^rd party without the express instruction of the account holder is not possible and they have acted as per the banking norms and have not caused deficiency in service in any manner and pray for dismissal of the case with costs.
3.           The OP No. 2 in his written statement stated that he has not received any insurance premium in any bank/anybody to insure the crop of the complainant. In absence of payment of any premium to him, he is not responsible to pay the insurance benefit and therefore, pray for dismissal of the case against him.
4.           The OP No. 3 stated that he is not the Insuring Company for the District of Nuapada and therefore, he has no knowledge regarding entire episode and pray for dismissal of the case against him.
5.           The only question relating to the case is whether the complainant is entitled to get the crop insurance benefit?

          It is seen from the documents on record that the complainant has admittedly deposited a sum of Rs. 3,500/- in his savings Bank Account in SBI, Komna Branch. On perusal of the passbook, it is seen that it is a savings bank account and the money is regularly deposited and withdrawal is made from the account. It is further seen that the complainant has filed his proposal to the bank and it is seen from the proposal form that he has obtained crop loan to the tune of Rs. 52,500/- and the premium has been calculated @ 2% which comes to Rs. 3,028.10p. When the complainant has availed the crop loan, the bank is duty-bound to deduct the amount from his account for insuring the crop against any unforeseen danger. In this case, it is clear from the document on record that the complainant has deposited the amount in his account and has submitted the proposal form. But, the OP Bank failed to deduct the amount and include his name in the list of beneficiary of PMFBY. So, it is crystal clear that due to negligence of the OP No. 1, the complainant was devoid of insurance claim and is liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss and harassment sustained by him and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 and dismissed against other OPs on contest. The OP No. 1 is made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The OP No.1 is directed to pay the compensation arising out of the damage of crop as per notification of the State Government regarding the proportion of loss of crop with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of loss of crop till it is actually paid to the complainant. The OP No. 1 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 order failing which the order as to cost and compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till its compliance.