The apex consumer commission has asked the Odisha government to "sympathetically" consider granting appropriate monetary relief to a farmer whose crop got damaged to the "extent of 84 per cent".
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench presided by Justice V K Jain, asked the state government to consider giving relief on "compassionate basis" to Kartika Biswal, a farmer based in Bolangir, who had sought compensation of Rs 25,000 from United Bank of India.
In its order, NCDRC allowed the bank's review petition filed against an order of the state commission which had directed the bank to pay the money to Biswal.
In its order, the state commission had accepted Biswal's submission that he had deposited Rs 800 with the bank for obtaining insurance cover for his crop but the bank did not do the needful.
However, the apex commission noted that even though Biswal had deposited Rs 800 with the bank, "there was absolutely no indication in the document that the deposit of Rs 800 was being made towards premium for insurance of the crop sown by the complainant in his land."
"In the absence of such an indication in the deposit slip, the petitioner bank was justified in treating the aforesaid amount as a normal deposit in the account of the complainant," the commission said, while setting aside state panel's order.
"Considering that the complainant is a small farmer and his crop got damaged to the extent of 84 per cent, we would recommend to the state government concerned to consider the case of the complainant sympathetically and if possible grant appropriate monetary relief to him, on compassionate basis.
"One copy of this order be sent to the chief secretary of state government concerned for information and consideration," it said.
In his complaint before a district consumer forum, Biswal had said he had deposited a sum of Rs 800 in his account with the bank towards premium for obtaining insurance cover in respect of the crop sown on his land, along with crop coverage certificate.
Later, he suffered over 80 per cent crop loss due to drought in his area, but did not get a compensation of Rs 25,000 (insurance amount) as his crop had not been insured because bank had not forwarded the necessary documents to an agency, which was to insure the crop and reimburse the farmer in case of loss of the crop.
In its written version, however, the bank denied having received the premium or the crop coverage certificate from the complainant.
In its May 2013 order, the forum had directed the bank to credit Rs 25,000 into the account of Biswas along with a Rs 2,500 for compensation and the cost of litigation. The state commission further upheld forum's order.
