Disposed

Jhasketan Pradhan v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC8 Feb 2023WP(C)/24186/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge High Court directed the respondent insurance company to consider the petitioners' corrected Khariff 2013 crop insurance claim within two months after giving an opportunity of hearing, rather than issuing a writ for direct payment.

What did the court decide?

Directs Opposite Party No. 6 to reconsider the Petitioners' crop insurance claim within two months and release benefits within one month if eligible.

Jhasketan Pradhan Vs State of Orissa — Banking and Recovery | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.24186 of 2017

¶3

Jhasketan Pradhan & Ors.

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

08.02.2023

Order No

10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶13

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the Opp. Party No. 3 in Court today be kept on record.

¶14

3. Heard Mr. Arabinda Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Baidhar Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 4, Ms. Anita Nanda, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 5 and Mr. S.S. Rao, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 6.

¶15

4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶16

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue notice to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to-

¶17

(i) Why the Opp. Parties will not be directed to pay the khariff crop Insurance Claim of the Petitioners for the year 2013 within stipulated time.

¶18

(ii) Why the Opp. Party will not be direct to pay the interest of insurance claim amount from the year 2013.

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

And if the Opp. Parties do not give their show cause then the Rule be made absolutely by issuing appropriate writ/writs to the Opp. Parties and any other order as deem fit be passed.

¶21

And for this act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶22

5. It is contended that claiming the benefit of crop insurance for Khariff 2013 though the Petitioners submitted their applications thorough O.P. No. 3-Bank, but their cases were never considered by the O.P. No. 6 and no compensation towards crop insurance was released in their favour. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that vide letter under Annexure-5, O.P. No. 3 though rectified some defects made by the Bank while submitting the claim applications earlier before the O.P. No. 6, but no decision was taken even after such rectification of the defects and accordingly the Petitioners have suffered.

¶23

6. Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank on the other hand contended that on receipt of the applications from the Petitioners with regard to loss of Kharif 2013, the Bank initially while forwarded the application wrongly mentioned the name of the G.P. as Paramanpur instead of Kolabira. The same was subsequently rectified by issuing Annexure-5 to the Opp. Party No. 6. But in spite of such rectification of the defects, the claim applications of the Petitioners were not considered and no communication was made by the O.P. No. 6 in compliance of Annexure-5.

¶24

7. Mr. S.S. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 6 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. The stand taken by the O.P. No. 6 in Para 12 is quoted hereunder:-

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

“12. That with regard to averments made in para 12 and 14, that for the reporting of the name of G.P. wrongly in the declaration of the opposite party no. 5, the petitioners suffered, this opposite party no. 6 begs to submits that as already submitted as per the scheme if the due to fault of any Financial Institution any one suffers, the loss is to be indemnified by the concerned institution only and no claim would subsist against this opposite party and therefore the present writ application in the present form against this opposite party is not maintainable.

¶28

It is contended by Mr. Rao relying on the stand taken in Para 12 that because of wrong description of the name of the G.P. by the Bank which is the financial institution who has to indemnify the Petitioners.

¶29

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the Petitioners claiming the benefit of crop insurance in respect of Kharif 2013 made their application through the Bank of O.P. No. 3. As revealed from Annexure-5 since the Bank while forwarded the application wrongly by indicating the name of G.P. as Paramanpur in place of Kolabira, the matter was not considered by the O.P. No. 6. Subsequently, vide letter dtd.28.09.2015 under Annexure-5, though the Opp. Party-Bank clarified the position and requested the O.P. No. 6 to consider the claim of the Petitioner for release of the claim, but no decision was ever taken by the O.P. No. 6. From the counter filed by O.P. No. 6 it is found that the O.P. No. 6 has not taken any decision on the claim after receipt of Annexure5.

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

// 4 //

¶32

9. In view of such factual position, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs O.P. No. 6 to consider the claim of the Petitioners so forwarded by the Bank under Annexure-5 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order by affording opportunity of hearing to the Bank as well as Petitioner No. 1 on behalf of all the Petitioners. On such reconsideration if it is found that the Petitioners are otherwise eligible to get the benefit of the claim, then appropriate action be also taken to release the benefits within a further period of one (1) month.

¶33

10. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation

¶34

and direction.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sneha

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Jhasketan Pradhan v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhasketan Pradhan v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puspalata Dei@Mahanti Vs Anshuman Mahanti

Rahash Bihari Patra Vs State of Odisha

Mihir Ranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd.,Bengaluru Vs Public Utility Services, Ganjam and Gajapati

Bipin Bihari Subudhi Vs the General Manager,Tata Aig Company,Bmc Building,Bbsr

Janaki Dalai Vs Kartikeswar Dalai