State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager, State Bank Of India vs Sri Adhir Debnath on 24 May, 2019
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/613/2014 ( Date of Filing : 28 May 2014 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 23/04/2014 in Case No. CC/05/2013 of District Alipurduar) 1. The Manager, State Bank of India Alipurduar Bazar Branch, P.O. Alipurduar, Dist. Jalpaiguri, Pin-736 121, represented by its Br. Manager, Mr. Sujit Kumar Ghsoh. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Adhir Debnath So Late Aswini Kumar Debnath, Vill. & P.O. - Chapararpar, Dist. Jalpaiguri 2. Sri Sarat Chandra Barman S/o Lt. Surendra Barman, Vill. & P.O. - Chapararpar, Dist. Jalpaiguri. 3. The Chairman & Managing Director, Agricultural Insurance Co. of India Ltd. 13th & 21st Floor, Ambadeep, 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001. 4. The Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Co. of India Ltd. OM Tower, 5th Floor, 32-Chowrringhee Road, Kolkata - 700 071, represented by its Regional Manager, Mr. Dasharathi Singh. 5. The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India Sky Star Building, Sevoke Road, Siliguri, Pin-734 401. 6. The Agricultural Development Officer Alipurduar Block-II, P.O. Alipurduar Court, Dist. Jalpaiguri, Pin -736 122, represented by its Asst. Director, Mr. Amlan Bhattacharya 7. The Krishi Prayukti Sahayak(KPS) Chapararpar-I, G.P., P.O. Alipurduar Court, Dist. Jalpaiguri - 736 122. 8. The Block Development Officer, Alipurduar Block-II, P.O. Alipurduar Court, P.S. Alipurduar, Dist. Jalpaiguri. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Pradip Kumar Pal Choudhuri Mr. Gouranga Gupta Roy Mr. Souvik Das, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Sovanlal Bera., Advocate Mr. Sayak Majumder, Advocate Dated : 24 May 2019 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Appeal Nos. FA/613/2014 and FA/632/2014 arise out of the Order dated 23-04-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Alipurduar in CC No. 05/2013. The bone of contention of both these Appeals being identical in nature, the same are disposed of through this common order.
On 16-07-1999, the Govt. of India, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Department of Agriculture & Cooperation notified and implemented the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana). Taking advantage of the aforesaid scheme, the Complainants took loan from the OP No. 4. As ill luck would have it, the Complainants suffered huge loss in respect of crop production due to severe winter and some unknown crop damaging diseases. Subsequently, the Complainants asked for due compensation of the estimated loss through their bank as envisaged under the above Bima Yojana. Other OPs were also approached by the Complainants in this regard. However, since all their sincere efforts drew a blank, the Complainants, on behalf of several affected farmers, including themselves, filed the complaint case.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainants argued that the procedural lapses committed by the Government Department by making lesser numbers of CCEs had led to a wrong reporting of higher actual yield depriving the farmers of the area of their genuine claim.
In their defence, the OP Nos. 1 and 2, being the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., New Delhi -110001 and Regional Manager of the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Kolkata- 700071 submitted that the threshold yield in the area in question in respect of the subject crop of Rabi season, 2008-2009 which, as shown at page 4 of the impugned order, was 15363 Kg/hector against an actual yield of 20,280.33 Kg/hector as per report of the Department of Agriculture, Govt. of West Bengal. Actual yield being much more than the threshold yield, there was no probability of crop damage or crop failure in Chaparerpar-I GP under Alipurduar- II Panchayat Samiti , the area in question. Accordingly, the Ld. Advocate for these OPs argued that farmers of the said area did not and should not have any entitlement towards crop compensation for the said season as per the scheme.
As contended further by the Ld. Advocate, the Ld. District Forum refused to appreciate their contention that the responsibility of wrong reporting in respect of the actual yield, if any, should devolve upon the OP Nos. 5 to 7, in the complaint petition, being the Agricultural Development Officer, Alipurduar Block II, represented by Assistant Director, Mr. Amlan Bhattacharya, The Krishi Prayukti Sahayak (KPS), Chaparerpar-I GP under Alipurduar Panchayat Samiti, represented by the same Assistant Director and the Block Development Officer, Alipurduar Block No. II, respectively, as the said actual yield report was prepared based on 06 Crop Cutting Experiments (CCEs) instead of stipulated number of 08 CCEs as envisaged under clause 11 of the subject scheme and also as specifically directed in the order passed by the Department of Agriculture, Govt. of West Bengal, vide its number 3105-Crop Ins/7C-6/2008 dated 16/12/2008.
The Ld. Advocate continued to submit that the assessment of crop failure depended upon some definite yardsticks of which the actual yield was an important one and the OP No. 1 and 2 Insurance Company did not have any discretion to go by any report other than that submitted by the State Government.
With the above submission, the Ld. Advocate prayed for exemption of his clients from paying any kind of compensation to the Complainants against the alleged crop damage for which they did not have any liability.
OP Nos. 3&4, i.e., The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India and the Manager, State Bank of India, Alipurduar Bazar branch on the other hand, submitted that the subject Scheme was jointly sponsored by the Govt. of India, Govt. of West Bengal and Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. Liabilities in respect of catastrophic claims were to be shared by the above agencies and these OPs had no liabilities whatsoever to compensate the Complainants. These OPs submitted that nowhere in the fourcorners of the petition of complaint any allegation of laches/deficiency in service on the part of these OPs has been leveled.
Decision with reasons We have heard the parties attentively and gone through the documents on record carefully.
On closer scrutiny of the brochure containing detail nitty-gritty of the 'National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS)', it transpires that the aforesaid Scheme bestows a duty upon the State to plan and conduct requisite number of Crop Cutting Experiments (CCEs) for all notified crops in the notified insurance units in order to assess the crop yield.
It was indeed surprising that notwithstanding, in terms of the due provisions being laid down under the NAIS, it was incumbent on the part of the State Government to conduct minimum 08 CCEs, the statement furnished by the Department of Agriculture, Crop Insurance Branch, Govt. of West Bengal under cover of its letter dated 31-08-2009 indicated that, unlike previous years, the State Government conducted only 06 CCEs at Chaparerpar-I Gram Panchayat during Rabi 2008-2009 season. This is simply inexplicable. As the requisite numbers of CCEs were not carried out, the output figured out by the Department concerned quite naturally showed higher output.
There should be no two opinions as to the fact that the State Government was clearly at fault. Therefore, we did not have any qualms holding that the crop yield so figured out by the Department concerned was a faulty one and no reliance should be placed on it.
It appeared from the petition of complaint that as soon as the Complainants experienced problem with their crop, besides informing other agencies, they took the OP No. 5 into confidence by submitting a mass petition on 16-02-2009. Yet, the latter did not wake up from its deep slumber.
Despite the fault on the part of the State Government was palpable beyond any iota of doubt, it was indeed surprising that the Ld. District Forum exonerated the OP No. 5 of all liabilities and instead held the OP Nos. 4 and 6 to make good the loss of the Complainants. It was a clear instance of rob Peter to pay Paul which we were unable to appreciate and support under any circumstances.
According to Clause No. 9 of the NAIS (page no. 21), "In case, the State/UT administration fail to furnish yield data based on requisite number of CCEs or fail to furnish yield data within the stipulated date, responsibility of such claims, if any, arising out of such data will totally rest with the State/UT administration".
As the OP Nos. 5 and 6 were at fault, in our considered opinion, none else but the Govt. of West Bengal should have to shoulder the burden of compensating the loss as quantified by the Ld. District Forum.
It appeared from the running page no. 3 (paragraph no. 3) of the impugned order that the Opposite Party No. 7, being the BDO, Alipurduar Block II was expunged under Order No-14 dated 25/09/2013 for not taking steps by the Complainants against the OP No.7 and to avoid unnecessary delay. The Cause List of the complaint case and the impugned order, however, did not carry the reflection of the said order as the name of the OP No. 7 was still found to be figuring in the list of OPs there. However, ignoring the same as an omission on the part of the Ld. District Forum, we are inclined not to pass any adverse order against the said OP No. 7 in the complaint case.
We, thus, find merit in both these Appeals.
Hence, O R D E R E D Both the Appeals stand allowed on contest. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Agricultural Development Officer, Alipurduar Block II and Krishi Prayukti Sahayak (KPS), Chaparerpar - I G.P. shall jointly/severally pay the entire decretal sum to the Complainants. The Appellants are exonerated of all liabilities.
Let the original copy of this order be kept in the case record of FA/613/2014 and a photocopy thereof in FA/632/2014. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER