State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sambalpur District Co-Operative ... vs Prasanna Kumar Acharya, on 25 August, 2020
STATECONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION,ODISHA,CUTTACK
C.D. APPEAL NO. 995 OF 2003
(From an order dated 12.06.2003 passed by the District Forum,
Deogarh in C.D. Case No. 23 of 2003)
Sambalpur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.,
Deogarh Branch, At/Po/Dist - Deogarh,
Represented by the Branch Manager
... Appellant
Vrs.
1. Prasanna Kumar Acharya,
S/o Late Rama Ch. Acharya,
At - Purunagarh, Ps/Dist - Deogarh
2. State of Orissa, represented through
The Collector, Orissa
3. The Tahasildar,Deogarh,
At/Po/Dist - Deogarh
... Respondents
____________
For the appellant : M/s B.Sahoo & Associates
For the respondents : None
_____________
P R E S E N T:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY,PRESIDENT
AND
DR. S.MOHANTY,MEMBER
2
DATED THE 25th AUGUST,2020
ORDER
DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY,J., PRESIDENT This appeal is directed u/s 15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the "Act") against the order dated 12.6.2003 passed by the learned District Forum, Deogarh in C.D. Case No. 23 of 2003 wherein the District Forum has directed OP No.3 to pay insured amount of Rs.2,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.6,000/- with 12% interest from 31.1.2003 to the complainant besides payment of compensation of Rs.1,000/- for mental pain and agony along with Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation.
2. Appellant was OP No.3 and respondent No.1 was the complainant whereas respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were OP Nos. 1 and 2 respectively before the learned District Forum. Hereinafter the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of complainant is 3 that complainant has cultivable land of A0.03 acres situated village - Belmara and he raised crop in the year 2002 but due to drought the crop was damaged. There was policy of the State Government to indemnify the damaged crop subject to deposit of premium by the farmer. It is alleged inter alia that complainant has deposited Rs.315/- towards premium with OP No.3. Since the crop was damaged the complainant was allegedly entitled to insurance sum assured. But he did not receive the same in spite of approach. So he filed the complaint.
4. OP Nos. 1 and 2 being State Government and Tahasildar respectively filed written version stating that they have no role in this case as it is the matter between the complainant and OP No.3 but they admit that there was a scheme of the State Government to insure the crop as during 2002 there was damage to the crop due to drought in the concerned village of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, OP No.3 filed written version stating 4 that although the complainant has deposited the premium, they had sent it to insurance company concerned at their head office at Bargarh but the insurance company has not released the amount. So OP No.3 being only via media who received the amount and deposited the same in the insurance company at head office had no liability. Hence, OP No.3 has no any deficiency of service.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum without understanding the facts and circumstances of the case had erred in law by allowing the complaint and directing the appellant to pay insured amount of Rs.2,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.6,000/- with 12% interest from 3.1.2003 to the complainant and further compensation of Rs.1,000/- besides payment of cost of Rs.500/-. According to him learned District Forum ought to have passed order rejecting the complaint as OP No.3 has no any role of insurance company except receiving the premium and deposit the same in the insurance company at his head office at Bargarh. 5
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned District Forum erred in law by observing that OP No.3 has deficiency in service whereas the materials on record show that OP No.3 has received the premium of Rs.315/- from the complainant and had sent it to the concerned insurance company without any delay and as such OP No.3 is no way responsible for non-availability of sum assured to the complainant. So he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
8. The respondent did not appear in spite of SR being made sufficient against him.
9. The main point for consideration in this case is whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of OP No.3.
10. It is admitted fact that the complainant has got A0.03 acres of land at village - Belmara in the district of Deogarh. It is not in dispute that OP No.3 has received Rs.315/- as premium 6 from the complainant on 31.7.2002 and granted money receipt.
11. OP No.3 has filed letter addressed to the District Forum stating that they have received the said amount as premium and the same had been sent to their head office vide letter No. 662 dated 20.8.2002 for further transmission. In support of that he filed the receipt concerned from which it is revealed that the crop insurance premium of Rs.10,72,625.99 has been sent to Secretary,. Sambalpur District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Bargarh and the total amount has been received as premium from several farmers. However, the said amount has contained the premium of complainant as revealed form the written statement of OP No.3. It is revealed from the submission of Govt. Pleader that the scheme is based on welfare measure to give relief to the cultivator for loss of crop due to natural calamities and in fact the complainant is covered under the said drought affected area and entitled to compensation under the insurance policy within 15.7.2003.
7
12. From the aforesaid material, it is clear that OP No.3 being agent of the S.D.C.C.Bank Ltd. collects the premium under the scheme, it is his responsibility to see that the compensation under the insurance scheme is made available to the complainant inasmuch as the complainant does not known actually to whom the payment is made, but he knew that payment is made to OP No.3 who is answerable to the complainant. Moreover, for any act of the head office the Branch Office is also jointly and severally liable. In the case in hand, when the complainant had deposited the premium and it is proved that there is drought causing damage to the crop, he is entitled to get the compensation against the damaged corp. Thus, we are of the view that complainant has proved that OP No.3 has deficiency of service for non-availability of compensation amount out of the crop insurance to the complainant. We agree with the finding of the learned District Forum in this regard.
13. The learned District Forum after analysing the case record 8 passed the following order. The operative portion of the said order is as follows:-
"In result we allow the case of complt & direct O.P. No.3 to pay insured amount of 2000/- per acre i.e. Rs.6000/- with 12% interest from 31.1.2003, compensation of Rs.1000/- for the mental pain and agony etc. & Rs.500/- towards the cost of litigation within one month from the date of order failing which further interest of 12% will be calculated."
14. The impugned order does not disclose on what basis the learned District Forum reached the conclusion to pay Rs.2,000/- per acre with 12% interest from 31.1.2003 whereas the complainant shows that it has only claimed Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards loss sustained . Apart from this, section 14 of the Act does not specifically mention that in every case the insured amount must carry the interest. It may be remembered that whenever an order is passed given entitlement to a party, in term of the monetary relief, no pendentlite interest is ordinarily available but future interest is available if the situation demands. When there is no any 9 document showing the schedule like M.V.Actabout quantum of compensation, the compensation can only be computed basing on the evidence or the claim made. In this case, the complainant has claimed Rs.5,000/- as compensation and we are constrained to observe that the compensation of Rs.5,000/-only is to be made available from the date of impugned order of the District Forum and not from the date of application because of the reasons mentioned above. Hence ordered.
15. OP No.3 is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.5,000/- from the date of this order within 30 days from today failing which the amount would carry interest of 12% from the date of the order of learned District Forum till actual payment. The order of the learned District Forum is modified accordingly.
16. The appeal is allowed in part. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties. 10
..............................
(Dr.D.P.Choudhury,J President I agree.
.....................
(Dr.S.Mohanty) Member Cuttack August 25, 2020