- (1.) THESE two appeals have been preferred by the complainant as well as OP No. l of complaint case No. 43/2010, decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham/Kawardha (hereinafter called District Forum for short), vide order dated 29.6.2011, directing the OP No. l/Bank , to pay the complainant Rs. 18,219, on account of loss to the crop which was not got insured by the said OP, within one month otherwise the amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. For the purpose of convenience, parties will be referred as per their original nomenclature in the complaint case.
(2.) INDISPUTABLY , the complainant was having an agricultural plot of 16 acres in village Patharra, Tehsil Kawardha, under Bhoomi Swami Act, and used to grow crops in that Farm of land. In the year 2006 the land was mortgaged with the OP Bank and Kisan Credit Card with limit of Rs. 2,18,000 was issued by the OP No. l/Bank. For the kharif crop of the year 2009 -10, loan of Rs. 1,50,000 was granted by OP No. l on 28.5.2009 and thereafter a loan of Rs. 50,000 on 18.8.2009 and thereby in all Rs. 2,00,000 was obtained as loan in that year by the complainant. It is also not in dispute that drought was declared in the Kawardha Tehsil for kharif crop, in that year. The Agriculture Insurance Company of India/OP No. 2 was having National Agriculture Insurance Scheme for that area also and as per provisions of the scheme all the persons who have obtained crop loan from any Bank are included in the scheme of agriculture insurance. The allegation of the complainant before District Forum was that paddy as well as soyabean crop was sowed by him in his agricultural land in kharif season for which he obtained loan from the OP No. l/Bank and it was the duty of the OP No. l/Bank to have deducted the amount of premium from his loan account and to have transmitted the premium to the Agriculture Insurance Company of India, but the Bank has failed to perform its duty. In the relevant year crop yield was less than 37p. and the paddy crop was almost totally destroyed so draught was declared and the complainant became entitled for getting compensation under the agriculture insurance scheme. He issued notice demanding compensation under the scheme, as was provided to other farmers of the area and when no amount was paid, then he filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.
(3.) OP No. l/Bank refuting the allegations levelled by the complainant, in the written version averred that the complainant sowed paddy crop only in the area of 1.47 acre, for which loan of Rs. 7,000 was sanctioned and the amount of premium for that loan would have been only Rs. 175. Thus, if the amount of compensation is calculated, then it comes out to Rs. 2,966 only, for which the OP No. l/Bank is liable. On the remaining land, sugarcane crop was standing which was not a notified crop, so no premium was collected for that crop by the Bank and in not collecting premium for that un -notified crop, it committed no deficiency in service. Op No. 2, the Agriculture Insurance Co. of India in its reply averred that as per the provisions of the scheme the complainant has not obtained any insurance cover for any of his crop, as no premium was paid, on his behalf. It has also been averred that the Statement regarding irrigated paddy crop, unirrigated paddy crop and soyabean crop was received, for the notified area Kawardha, from the Op No. l/Bank itself, showing loss to the crop, evaluated by the Government of Chhattisgarh as per provisions of the scheme and then necessary amount has already been paid by the Insurance Company to the Bank and so it committed no deficiency in service.;