State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Regional -In-Charge, Agriculture ... vs Parimal Debnath on 19 November, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1100/2015 ( Date of Filing : 01 Oct 2015 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 07/08/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/76/2012 of District Uttar Dinajpur) 1. Regional -in-charge, Agriculture Insurance Co. India Ltd. Kolkata Regional Office. OM Tower, 5th Floor, 32, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata - 700 071. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Parimal Debnath S/o, Lt. Abanimohan Debnath, Vill & P.O - Khalshi, P.S - Raiganj, Dist - Uttar Dinajpur. 2. The Manager, Sonabari Uttar O Gobindapur S.K.U.S. Ltd. (Mini Bank). P.O - Khalshi, P.S - Raiganj, Dist - Uttar Dinajpur. 3. The Secretary, Sonabari Uttar O Gobindapur S.K.U.S. Ltd (Mini Bank) P.O - Khalshi, P.S - Raiganj, Dist - Uttar Dinajpur. 4. The Manager Raiganj Central Co - Oporative Bank Ltd. Ukilpara P.O & P.S - Raiganj, Dist - Uttar Dinajpur. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Sayak Majumder, Advocate For the Respondent: Hirak Sinha., Advocate Mr. Pabitra Charan Bhattacharjee., Advocate Dated : 19 Nov 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Aggrieved with the decision of the Ld. District Forum, passed in CC/76/2012, whereof the complaint case has been allowed, this Appeal is moved by Agricultural Insurance Company Ltd.
A complaint case was filed before the Ld. District Forum, Uttar Dinajpur by one Sri Parimal Debnath against the Sonabari Uttar 'O' Gobindapur S.K.U.S. Ltd. and Ors. contending inter alia that on 01-04-2008, due to heavy hailstorm, his entire produce suffered damage. Notwithstanding he communicated the matter to all concerned forthwith, none took any positive step to compensate such loss which compelled him to file the instant complaint case.
In its WV, the OP No. 4, i.e., Agricultural Insurance Co. Ltd. submitted that the Complainant did not mention in his complaint the particulars of the land or the Gram Panchayat/Block under which the stated land situated. Further case of this OP was that the Scheme operates on an 'area approach' basis; individual assessment of claim/compensation is not permitted. It also submitted that not a single CCE was conducted in the concerned area by the State Government as against the minimum requirement of 8 CCEs. Therefore, the Complainant's claim was sub-standard. Consequently, no claim was payable.
Decision with reasons Notice was duly served upon all the Respondents. On notice, initially all the Respondents appeared through their respective Ld. Advocates. However, at the time of hearing, only the Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 were present. Accordingly, they were heard at length. We have also gone through the documents on record.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant argued that loss assessment in case of localized calamity should be implemented, if the districts and crops are identified by the State Govt. through Gazette Notification which was not done in this particular case. In absence of above notification, claims would be automatically calculated on receipt of yield data based on Crop Cutting Experiments (CCE) conducted by the State Government under General Crop Estimation Survey for the relevant season, crop and notified area. He alleged that in this particular case, no CCE was conducted by the State Government although it was incumbent on its part to conduct minimum 8 CCEs. As the State Government did not furnish any data for Rabi Crop 2007-08 season, therefore, the claim of the Respondent No. 1 was inadmissible.
On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Scheme would operate on the basis of 'area approach' and on an individual basis for localized calamities such as hailstorm, landslide, cyclone and flood. In case of localized calamities, he contended, where settlement of claims would be on individual basis, would have to be formulated by the IA in coordination with the State Government. Although the Appellant tried to shrug of its responsibility in the matter alleging fault on the part of the State Government, according to the Ld. Advocate, it was the duty of the IA to maintain proper liaison with the State which it did not do. He also stated that the defined claim formulated stated in the Appeal is applicable only for shortfall of the actual yield in an agricultural sessions and not for the case of the localized risks like hailstorm, landslide, flood, etc. Perusal of the brochure on the National Agricultural insurance Scheme bring to fore the following important aspects which bear mentioning here for proper adjudication of this dispute.
"* The Scheme would operate on the basis of 'Area Approach' for widespread calamities and on an individual basis for localized calamities such as hailstorm.
* The insured farmers who experience crop losses due to occurrence of these localized perils shall give immediate notice to the financial institution / notified office of IA and in any case within 48 hours along with particulars of crop insured and extent and cause of damage. On receipt of loss intimation, IA shall depute Loss assessors to the area for assessment of crop loss.
* IA shall also develop Loss adjusters cadre and for this purpose few Officers will be trained in Loss assessment procedures. The services of unemployeed Agrl. graduates and retired Agrl. Department Officials may also be utilised for loss assessment after initial training.
* Loss assessment and modified indemnity procedures in case of occurrence of localized perils, such as hailstorm, landslide, cyclone and Flood where settlement of claims will be on individual basis, shall be formulated by IA in consultation with State / UT. Govt.
* Disputed claims/sub-standard claims, if any, will be referred to a Committee consisting of representatives of Ministry of Agriculture (GoI), concerned State Government and IA".
It is amply clear, therefore, in case of localized calamity like hailstorm, the IA cannot remain a mute spectator. On receipt of due intimation from the beneficiary farmer, it is required to rush Loss assessors to the area for assessment of crop loss.
No evidence is forthcoming before us to show that the Appellant acted in true spirit of the Scheme. It is sad reflection on the sincerity of purpose of the Appellant that it opted for craven silence rather than deputing Loss Assessor to the spot to assess the loss as envisaged in the Scheme. Strange indeed, the disputed claim was not referred to the concerned 'Committee' either for taking necessary decision in the matter.
The alibi of absence of particulars of the land in the complaint letter is hardly tenable. It is to be kept in mind that the farmers are mostly illiterate persons. Therefore, if indeed the complaint letter misses out any specifics, there was no harm asking the complainant to provide requisite particulars. Under any circumstances, this could not be a valid reason to throw the same into waste paper bin.
The Ld. District Forum, as it appears, very rightly allowed the case and therefore, the same does not require any sort of intervention from our end.
The Appeal, thus, fails.
Hence, O R D E R E D The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent No. 1 with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the Appellant to the Respondent No. 1. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER