MAHARASHTRA STATE LEVEL CROP INSURANCE CELL OF GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. SAMBHAJIRAO W TODMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORTLY stated the facts are that the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs. 15,000 from Bank of Maharashtra, 1st opponent on 3-10-1986 for his crop. The said amount was granted to the complainant under the Crop Insurance Scheme for rabi season in the year 1986-87. The complainant alleged that he paid Rs. 450/- to 1st opponent towards the premium amount of the insurance. The complainant further alleged that under the said scheme his crop was insured and in case of failure his loss was to be indemnified by the Insurance Company namely the Maharashtra State Level Crop Insurance Cell, present appellant. The complainant alleged that due to scanty rain fall, the jawar crop totally failed and therefore, he claimed Rs. 22,500/- as compensation from the opposite party under the said scheme. It is also stated by the complainant that the officers of the 1st opponent visited the complainants farm and were fully satisfied about the failure of the crop and said that the complainant would get his Insurance claim. The branch officers of the 1st opponent accordingly informed their head office on 22-12-1986. The complainant also obtained the required certificates from Village Officer/Village Development Officer and Secretary of Gram Panchyat regarding the failure of crop due to drought condition. The complainant alleged that he was surprised when on 17-7-1991 the opposite party informed him that they were unable to settle his insurance claim. The claimed amount of the insurance was not deposited in complainants account by the opposite party No. 1 i.e. Bank of Maharashtra and therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the Dist. Forum with the demand to deposit Rs. 22,500/- in his loan account for the year 1986-87. The opposite parties filed their written versions. 2nd opponent i.e. present appellant contended that the complainant had no right to institute the complaint. It is stated that there is no deficiency in the service. It is also contended that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. It is further submitted by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 that the comprehensive crop insurance scheme is a Social Welfare Scheme of Govt. of India which has been entrusted to opposite party No. 2 for implementation for the State Govt. As per opposite party No. 2, the said scheme is not a commercial scheme and the scheme envisages the protection of the farmer in case of crop failure to the extent of 1.50 per cent of crop loan availed of by them for cultivating only those crops which are identified by the Govt. of Maharashtra. During the course of enquiries, the State Govt. and the Central Govt. i.e. opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 respectively were added as parties to the dispute as they floated the scheme. It is contended on behalf of opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 on the lines of the stand taken by the opposite party No. 3. The Dist. Forum discussed in the impugned order the entire crop loan scheme and concluded that there is deficiency in the service of the opposite party in as much as the complainants legitimate claim has not been settled.

(2.) WE have heard Shri Mokashi, advocate for the appellant and the respondent No. 1 by Ms. Bhide, advocate and respondent No. 2 by Shri Shinde, advocate.

(3.) ANOTHER contention raised by Shri Mokashi is that the admissible loan to be granted to the complainant was Rs. 10,625/- whereas the Bank had granted the amount of Rs. 11,000 to the complainant which is contrary to the guide lines. The statement of Shri Mokashi is totally out of context since the allegations are about the Bank of Maharashtra and we find that the Bank of Maharashtra has not filed any appeal against the impugned order.