V.K. Patil, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 24.8.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham/Kawardha (C.G.) (hereinafter referred for short as "District Forum") in complaint case No. 39/2010 whereby complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency in service against both the Ops. the Insurance Company and bank together, owing to non -payment of agriculture insurance claim due to loss caused to 'Kharif' crop in her field, has been partly allowed as per the impugned order. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant averred to have procured a credit card No. 11228284006 from O.P. -1/bank by which loan limit was available for Rs. 50,000. Complainant further averred that she had raised loan of Rs. 45,000 on 3.3.2008 from O.P. -1/bank against the said credit card towards "Kharif crop" for the year 2008 -2009 which along with interest accumulated to Rs. 48,391 as at 5.9.2008, so in terms of National Insurance Scheme, insurance premium of Rs. 1,250 on loan limit amount Rs. 50,000 was collected by O.P. -1/bank when she was informed that in the event of loss due to non production of "Kharif" crop or its yield found less than 37%, compensation @ Rs. 10,000 per acre or to the extent of total loan amount whichever is less, would be payable by O.P. -2/Insurance Company since it had collected insurance premium amount from O.P. -1 bank. Complainant further averred that during the year 2008 -2009, Pandaria Tahsil was declared as draught affected area and in the said period, the crop yield in the area was observed as less than 37% and there was no crop yield in her field. She averred that she was entitled for compensation for the loss caused to the "Kharif Crop", in her field since premium had been charged for the purpose. Complainant also averred that after the year 2008 -2009 she had been demanding compensation from O.P. No. 1 Bank from June 2009 onward and she had been informed by it that compensation would be payable by O.P. No. 2, but it was not done. Complainant further averred that during the year 2009 -2010, Pandaria Tahsil was declared as drought affected area and compensation was paid on 8.8.2010, but such compensation was not given for the year 2008 -2009. Complainant had also sent a notice to OPs through an Advocate on 15.9.2010 demanding compensation for the year 2008 -2009 but found no heed. She alleged that the act of OPs, in collecting premium amount from her for the purpose and in turn not paying the crop insurance claim for the year 2008 -2009, amounted to deficiency in service so prayed before the District Forum seeking direction to OPs for payment of compensation Rs. 50,000.
(2.) O .P. No. 1/Bank in its reply, while denying other averments of the complainant averred that it had informed the complainant that since Agriculture Insurance Company used to provide compensation in terms of the policies of Chhattisgarh Government on the basis of crop yield so it was to decide the compensation amount. O.P. No. 1/bank also averred that Chhattisgarh Government had declared the Pandaria Tahsil as drought affected area for "Kharif crop" during the year 2008 -2009, but it had no information that District Co -operative Bank, Pandaria had paid any compensation towards the loss caused to its borrowers/farmers for crop during the year 2008 -2009, as was averred by the complainant. O.P. No. 1/bank also averred that it had collected premium for crop insurance for the year 2008 -2009 and also paid compensation of Rs. 25,576.33 on 8.8.2010 to the complainant, as such her claim was not entertainable and she was not entitled for any compensation. O.P. No. 1/bank averred that it had not committed any deficiency in service so the complaint in merit and also being time barred, was liable to be dismissed. O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company in its reply, while denying other averments of the complainant, averred that neither O.P. No. 1/bank had insured with it the notified area of Pandaria Tahsil in terms of National Agriculture Scheme nor premium was paid for Pandaria Tahsil area. O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company also averred that O.P. No. 1/bank neither submitted any Declaration Form for insurance of Kharif Crop of the farmers nor sought insurance coverage for the notified area of Pandaria Tahsil during year 2008 -2009. O.P. -2/Insurance Company further averred that as per National Agriculture Insurance Scheme of Central Government, the farmers are provided crop insurance and for that purpose, Chhattisgarh Government had initiated move and introduced the scheme in the year 2008 -2009, so its terms and conditions were binding on the insured farmers, bank, Insurance Company, and related parties. According to the said Scheme, in the event of loss caused to the affected crop under the notified area, its assessment of loss used to be done on the basis of harvesting depending on average of previous year's record and percentage yield. O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company averred that since Pandaria Tahsil was not covered under insurance during the relevant period, so there was no question of paying any compensation, as such prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
(3.) THE complaint case was earlier decided on 25.3.2011 by learned District Forum against the Insurance Company directing it to pay compensation and thereafter on filing appeal no 242/2011 by the Insurance Company before this commission, the same was decided on 27.1.2012 thereby remanding the matter back to the District Forum with the direction to call original of the Declaration Form in respect of bank of the particular notified area submitted by the respondent No. 2/bank with the appellant/Insurance Company and then to decide the case afresh on merits, in view of additional documents produced by parties at appellate stage.;