Branch Manager, State Bank Of India Kantamal Branch, Boudh vs State Of Orissa

Savitri Ratho, J

We have heard Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant-Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mr. Mund, learned Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, Mr. N. K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3-the Agricultural Insurance Company and Ms. Madhumita Panda , learned counsel for Respondent No.5 Kunja Bihari Khatua through hybrid mode.

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kantamal Branch has challenged the order dated 19.02.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.2852 of 2017 filed by the Respondent No.5 directing the bank authority to settle the matter within a period of one week by paying the differential amount to the petitioner.

The Respondent No.5 had filed the writ petition for the following relief:-

"It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a Writ / Writs, Order /Orders/ Direction / Directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian and more particularly issue directions and more particularly to issue:

(i) Writ of certiorari calling upon the Opposite Parties to produce the relevant records and return;

(ii) Writ of certiorari declaring the inaction of the Opp. Parties(Nos.3 to 5) as bad, illegal and contrary to the provisions of law, Notifications/Circulars published by the State Government;

(iii) Writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties Nos.3 to 5 to calculate and disburse the compensation at the rate of 56 % instead of 24 % along with interest in respect of Uma Panchayat within a stipulated period;

(iv) Writ of mandamus directing the Authority to disburse the differential amount with interest; AND pass any other order/orders, direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in the interest of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case".

The Respondent No.5 had filed the writ application being aggrieved by the inaction of the present Respondent Nos.3-The Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company and 4-The Assistant Agriculture Officer, Kantamal Block in not paying her the crop insurance / compensation at the rate of 56% alongwith interest which had been fixed in respect of crops within Uma Gram Panchayat.

The case of the Respondent No.5 was that his family had got different parcels of lands at Village Kankutura and Masinagora. Ac.28.63 dec. in Village-Kankutura and Ac.5.51 dec., in Village-Masinagora and as per report of the Asst. Agriculture Officer, Kantamal Block, Village-Masinagora comes under Khuntigora G.P. and Village-Kankutura comes under Uma G.P. As per the letters of Branch Manager, S.B.I., Kantamal, non loanees of Village coming under Khuntigora G.P. are entitled to get 24.1 % of the crop insurance and villages coming under Uma G.P. non loanees are entitled to get 56 % of the crop insurance. The appellant had insured his lands in Village-Kankutura and Masinagora in due time by paying the required premium dues from his savings Bank Account of Kantamal S.B.I. during the Kharif year, 2011. But while making payment the bank had paid him at the rate only 24.1 % for his land situated at Village-Masinagora and Kankutura (which are within Uma Gram Panchayat) thereby depriving him from getting his legitimate dues at the rate of 56 % for his lands coming under Uma G.P. Though the total claim amount of the Appellant comes to Rs.2,22,388/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand three hundred Eighty eight only) approximately, but the authority has paid only a sum of Rs.92,165/- (Ninety-two thousand one hundred sixty five) only without taking into consideration of the crops damage of two villages of the Petitioner. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs.1,30,223/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand and Two hundred Twenty Three) only approximately from the Insurance Company.

That the appellant had approached the Lok Adalat, Boudh for consideration of his grievance but the Secretary, D.L.S.A. Boudh directed him to appear before the Collector, Boudh. Though the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Boudh requested the Collector, Boudh to take a decision in the matter, but the Collector did not pay any heed to the claim of the appellant, for which the appellant had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19719 of 2014 and by order dated 17.11.2014. The writ petition was disposed of directing the Collector, Boudh to take a decision on the request of the appellant as well as the letter of the District Legal Services Authority, Boudh within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. As his representation was not disposed of within the time fixed by this Court, appellant had filed CONTC No.754 of 2015. During pendency of which the Collector disposed of his representation by order dated 26.04.2016 holding that since Kankutura village comes under Uma G.P., the appellant was eligible for 56 % of insurance claim for 7.80 Hector plus 3.60 Hector of paddy grown by him in Kankutura village of Uma Gram Panchayat during Khariff 2011-12 and directed the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Boudh to take necessary steps for payment of differential insurance claim amount to the appellant in consultation with the Agricultural Insurance Company and Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kantamal and report compliance.

The Deputy Director, Agriculture, Boudh by order dated 28.04.2016 directed the Chief Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. to settle the matter of the appellant at the earliest. Reiterating that the appellant is eligible for 24 % insurance claim for his 2.20 Hector of paddy grown in Masinagora of Khuntigora G.P. for which he had deposited premium at 150 % and 100 % Thresh Yield value during Kharif 2011-12 and 2015-16 in two phases. Thereafter, the Collector Boudh by order dated 02.07.2016 requested the Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to issue necessary instruction to the concerned authorities to settle the grievance of the petitioner. After receiving the copy of the letter dated 02.07.2016, the appellant had applied before the Agricultural Insurance Company for a copy of the letter dated 05.05.2016 addressed to the Collector, Boudh. The respondent no.4 (Insurance Company) supplied the same by letter dated 20.02.2017. It reveals from letter dated 05.05.2016 that the insurance company had already settled the admissible claims of all the insured farmers for the Kharif 2011 season on the basis of Loanee as well as Non-Loanee declarations as submitted by Nodal Banks and they had also transferred an amount of Rs.4,00,66,908.60/- (Rupees four crores sixty six thousand nine hundred eight and paisa sixty) only towards full and final settlement of the claims under NAIS Kharif 2011 season to the State Bank of India, Phulbani Branch, the Nodal Branch in this particular case. It is the duty of the Nodal Banks/Insurance Branch to settle the differential admissible claims amount with the farmers.

The Appellant had filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that it was apparent from the copies of the proposal forms filled by the Respondent No 5 appellant himself that he had not filled the name of the Gram Panchayat or G.P. in the Proposal Forms, which is Unit of Insurance in case of Paddy Crops. It was further stated that the RoRs submitted by the appellant to the Bank, though contain the name of the Mouza, Tahasil etc., but it does not contain the name of the respective Gram Panchayat and the  appellant  had  given  a  Crop  Shown  Certificate  dated 30.07.2011, issued by the Asst. Agricultural Officer (AAO), Kantamal (the respondent no.5 to this writ petition) that he is a big farmer and his G.P. or Gram Panchayat is Khuntigora. Accordingly the bank had sent the Insurance Proposal Forms and the Insurance Premiums to the Nodal Branch, i.e., SBI, Phulbani Branch. Accordingly, the Nodal Branch had sent all the documents to the implementing Agency and the AICL had insured all their lands under Kuntigora G.P. Thereafter, the natural calamity struck, the respondent No 5 submitted the claim forms to the Appellant bank and the bank had sent the Claim Forms to the AICL, through the Nodal Branch and after receipt of the insurance amount it has handed over the insurance amount @ 24.01 % as declared by the State Government for Khuntigora G.P. Later on the appellant has claimed that the village Kankutra is coming under one "Uma" G.P. for which State Government has declared crop loss of 56 % for the said year and hence he should get more insurance amount. After receipt of the above letter the Branch had obtained clarification from the Asst. Agricultural Officer, Kantamal in the matter and the AAO, Kantamal has now clarified that the Kankutra village is coming under "Uma" G.P. But, the AICL has repudiated the claim of the petitioner, vide letter dated 05.05.2016. Hence it was submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party bank in implementing the above Government Scheme. The farmer himself had not filled the G.P. name i.e., "UMA" under which the Kankutra village is coming in the Insurance Proposal Forms and further had submitted a Crop Shown Certificate issued by the Asst. Agricultural Officer, Kantamal/the respondent no.5 in which the G.P. mentioned as Khuntigora G.P. and as the RoR submitted by the appellant did not disclose the name of the G.P. bank on the basis of certified issued by the AAO Kantamal had sent the Insurance Proposal Form for Khuntigora G.P. in good faith and it would on account of the negligence is on the part of the appellant himself of not mentioning the G.P name in the proposal forms and also on the part of the Asst. Agricultural Officer, Kantamal that wrong G.P. name was included. It was further stated that the calculation made by the appellant regarding amounts to be paid is required to be confirmed and sanctioned by respondent no.3, i.e., AICL. It was further stated that the AICL has selectively quoted the Sl. No.5 of the " Role and Responsibilities of the Financial Institutions" Boudh from the NAIS scheme which shows that " In case of farmer deprived from any benefit under the Scheme due to errors/ omissions/ commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACS, the concerned institutions only shall make good all such losses." The said clause is applicable only when the loss is occurred due to the errors/omissions/commissions on the part of the Nodal Bank/Insuring Branch. But in this case there was no deficiency on the part of the bank, the Respondent No 5 had himself had not filled the G.P. name, i.e., "Uma" under which the Kankutra village is coming in the insurance proposal forms. Hence, there was no deficiency on the part of the Appellant bank rather negligence cause on the part of the Respondent No 5 himself not mentioning the G.P. name in the insurance proposal form and also not on the part of the Assistant Agricultural Officer, Kantamal in issuing the certificate containing the wrong G.P. name of the petitioner.

The Respondent No.5 had filed rejoinder to this counter affidavit wherein he has stated that he had filled RoR reflected the name of the village and block and in nodal branch of that area. The opposite party ought to have at the knowledge of which village comes under which G.P. and as per the letter No.35 dated 05.05.2016 "as per the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS)" we have already settled the admissible claims to all the insured farmers for Kharif 2011season on the basis Lonee as well as Non-Lonee declarations as submitted by Nodal Banks. We would also like to inform you that, we have transferred Rs.3,99,31,028.33 on 10.08.2012 and Rs.4,00,66,908.60/- towards full and final settlement of claims under NAIS Kharif 2011 season to the State Bank of India, Phulbani Branch, i.e., Nodal Bank in this particular case.

Counter affidavit had been filed by the Agricultural Insurance Company- respondent no.4 stating inter alia that under the NIAS Kharif 2011 seasons, the G.P. was notified as the unit of insurance for paddy crop. Hence, unit of insurance, i.e., name of the G.P. is most important information required for determination of claims of farmer under NAIS Kharif, 2011 season and that the appellant had submitted a single non-loanee proposal form for crop insurance to respondent no.4 without mentioning the name of the G.P. instead of two separate non-loanee proposal forms for two separate G.Ps under which, his lands are located. The Assistant Agricultural Officer and the Village Agricultural Worker also issued a single crop shown certificate to the appellant in which it was certified that appellant is a big farmer and he has cultivated paddy crop and the condition of the crop was good and the name of the G.P. as Khuntigora instead of issuing two crop shown certificate for two separate G.Ps with respective are of land for insurance. It was further stated that the opposite party had no scope to know the actual G.P. of the appellant as the individual details are to be mentioned at branch level as per the scheme provisions. The appellant has been deprived of his legitimate dues due to the combined mistakes being attributable to him, crop shown certificate issuing officer (respondent no.5) and the insuring branch (respondent no.4). Since the legible claim for compensation on account of crop loss is dependent upon submissions records by the nodal bank, the respondent no.3 settles all admissible claims on the basis of loanee and non-loanee declarations submitted by the Banks-Notified Area wise strictly-in accordance with the NAIS Scheme. Respondent no.3 has limited authority to settle any additional claim arising out of any discrepancy or misreporting by the lonee, the Bank or any other authority, once the claims for a season is settled and closed. As per the NAIS provision in Operational Modalities Para-9, it is provided that " In case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the Scheme due to errors/ omissions/commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACS, the concerned institutions only shall made good of such losses". Thus once the claims for a season is settled, the respondent no.3 being the Implementing Agency has no authority either to reopen the claims or to approve any additional claims arising out of any mistake by the Nodal Bank or the Insuring Branch.

The learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, learned counsel for respondent no.3 (Insurance Company) and respondent no.4 (Asst. Agriculture Officer) holding as follows:-

..."Mr. A. K. Roy, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 states that after making calculation, as per provision, the amount has been deposited to the Bank, but the bank in turn released 24.11 % of the amount in respect of both the villages, whereas the village under Uma Grama Panchayat, the appellant is entitled to 56 % compensation. Mr. B. Balkrishna, learned counsel for the Bank contended that the dues has been calculated as 24.11 % and the same has been released, but so far as the claim made by the appellant that he is entitled 56 %, excluding the amount already paid, the differential amount is required to be considered. Therefore, he seeks time to consider the same and pass appropriate order and in the event it is decided to extend the benefit, necessary steps shall be taken within a week. But fact remains, in the meantime three years have passed. This Court takes a serious view for causing harassment to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court directs the Bank authority to settle the matter within a period of one week by paying the differential amount to the petitioner"....

Learned counsel for the appellant states that instead of only directing the appellant alone to settle the matter, the Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.3 should have been directed so that such differential amount had been calculated and settle at the level of the appellant then in turn Respondent No.3 for payment to the Respondent No.5. He further submits that there was negligence on the part of the Respondent No.4 in issuing the certificate dated 30.07.2011 and also on the part of Respondent No.5 in submitting the said certificate pertaining to a total 10 Hectors of land of the branch and so the contributory negligence on the part of the respondent no.5 himself. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the Respondents, and the written notes of submission filed by them, the following facts emerge:

(a) The petitioner (respondent No.5) had land in village Masinagora under Khuntigora G.P. and in village Kukutura under Uma G.P.

(b) While  submitting  the  proposal  form  he  had  not mentioned  the  respective  G.Ps.  The  G.Ps  are  the  unit  of insurance but the petitioner had not mentioned the corresponding G.P. in his proposal form .That apart instead of submitting two proposal forms he had submitted only one proposal form mentioning two villages and without mentioning the G.Ps.

(c) The Agricultural Officer had committed the mistake by stating in his report that Masinagora village and Kankutura both come under Khuntigora G.P.

(d) The Insuring Bank has submitted the proposal form to the Insurance Company mentioning that the two villages come under Khutigora G.P. After the cyclone 2011, the Insurance Company processed the claim in respect of the two G.Ps and made payments as per the decision of the Government given for 24.1% in respect of Khutigora G.P and 56% in respect of Uma G.P. and sent the same to the bank which released the amount for payment to the farmers.

(e) The payments were released to the farmers by the appellant bank as per the names of the G.Ps mentioned in the proposal/ claim forms.

(f) The Respondent No.5 was entitled to receive 24.1 % in respect of village-Masinagora under Khuntigora G.P. and 56 % in respect of village- Kukutura under Uma G.P.

(g) But on account of carelessness on the part of the Respondent No.5 himself and mistake committed by the Asst. Agricultural Officer, there was wrong recording of G.P.in respect of Village Khuntigora which had gone undetected. We are of the considered opinion Sl.No.5 of the "Role and responsibilities of the Financial Institutions" which refers to the errors / omissions/ commissions of the Nodal bank / Branch / PACS, will not be attracted as the error has been committed by the farmer himself .

(h) Respondent No. 5 has been paid @ 24.1 % in respect of his land situated in Khuntigora G.P as well as the land situated in Uma G.P., although he was entitled to receive the insurance amount at the rate of 56% in respect land situated in Uma G.P.

(i) Inspite of the direction of the order passed in the writ petition , the Respondent No. 5 has not been paid the differential amount till date as the Appellant bank and the Agricultural Insurance Company are disputing their liability to pay.

From the above facts, it is apparent that the Respondent No 5 has not been vigilant while filling up the proposal forms and normally should not be granted any relief. But the National Agricultural Scheme (NAIS) is which provides for giving compensation to farmers whose crops have suffered damage during a natural calamity like cyclone is a beneficial scheme, so in our considered opinion, he should not be deprived of receiving the differential compensation. But as he was at fault, no interest shall be payable on the differential amount.

Admittedly, the compensation is to be paid by the Agricultural Insurance Company. On the basis of declarations submitted by the Appellant Bank, the Insurance Company has already settled the admissible claims and released the amount, which has been paid to all the insured farmers. So had the declaration been correctly filled up , the Agricultural company would have released compensation at the rate of 56% in place of 24.1 % in respect of the land of Respondent No.5 situated in Uma G.P long back. There is thus neither any negligence nor mistake committed by the Agricultural Company which has acted on the documents sent to it by the Appellant Bank which in turn has submitted the claim form prepared by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

Hence its is directed that the Respondent No.5 shall approach the Assistant Agricultural Officer within four weeks from today with a certified copy of this order. A fresh claim form and supporting documents shall then be prepared by the Assistant Agricultural Officer within two weeks hence, giving the correct particulars of the land (G.P.) of the land and the differential amount payable to the Respondent No.5, and submitted to the Appellant Bank. The Appellant Bank shall then forward it to the Agricultural Company within four weeks hence. The Agricultural Company shall then process the claim and release the differential amount within a period of three months to the Appellant Bank, so that it can be paid to Respondent No. 5 within a month thereafter.

The writ appeal is disposed of modifying the order of the Single Judge in the manner indicated above.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

....................................