Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/22/2020

Taranisen Badhei - Complainant(s)

Versus

1- Pritam Agrawala - Opp.Party(s)

S.Mishra, A.Meher & A.R. Guru

05 Dec 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer.Case No.- 22/2020

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

Taranisen Badhei, S/o- Khetra Mohan Badhei, 

R/O- Gochhara, Ps- Mahulpali,

Po- Gochhara, Tahsil- Kuchinda

Dist- Sambalpur-768222.                              ………………..Complainant.                 

                                                VERSUS                      

1.       Pritam Agrawala,

          S/O- Bajrang Agrawala, At/Po- Paruabhadi

          Via/Ps- Kuchinda, Dist- Sambalpur,

Propritor Common Service center

          A recognized Service provider, At/Po- Paruabhadi

          Ps- Kuchinda, Dist- Sambalpur                 

2.       Agricultural Insurance Company, office

 At-Block-1, 5^th Floor, Plate-B & C , East Kidwai Nagar,

Ring Road, New Delhi-110023                              ……….Opposite Parties.

 

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :-         Sri.S.Mishra, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P.No. 1             :-         Sri. S.P.Sahu, Advocate & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.2                        :-         None

 

Date of Filing:02.09.2020, Date of Hearing :xxxxxx, Date of Judgement : 05.12.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a small and medium cultivator. He owned and possessed the land situated at Mouza Jaypur Gad under Kuchinda Tahasil of Sambalpur District. The OP No. 1 is a service Provider who runs a Common Service Center at Paruabhadi and provides service pertaining to Government and semi Government etc. on hire basis for and on behalf of OP No. 2 , Agriculture Insurance Company, Government of India, New Delhi which is an insurance company deals in crop insurance of farmers in the entire country. The Complainant comes under the non Loanee category and he insured the crop of the Complainant during the Kharif Sessions 2019 under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana through the OP No. 1. The Complainant approached the OP No. 1 to register his crop insurance through online depositing the premium amount in favour of OP No. 2. On 27.07.2019 the OP No. 1 directed the Complainant to submit the Xerox copy of the land documents i.e. R-O-R, Aadhar Card and pass Book of SB A/C. standing in the name of the Complainant SBI Gochhara. Accordingly the Complainant produced the documents for the purpose of registration of his name under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana under the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare, Govt. of India, New Delhi. The OP No. 1, through online service furnished the detail particular of the Complainant to the OP No. 2 and realized the premium amount of Rs. 1032/- for 0.688 Hector covering crops in 15 numbers of plots and Rs. 912/- for 0.608 Hector of land covering 15 numbers of plots from the saving account of the Complainant. The Complainant maintains two number of account bearing SB A/c no. 30713111313 & CA No. 36685320355 in SBI, Gochhara Branch, the premium amount was transferred from his saving account to the saving account of OP No. 1, who is in turn deposit the amount to the OP No. 2 for providing aforesaid service to the Complainant. The OP No. 1 realized service charge of Rs. 300/- from the Complainant. The Complainant asked for a money receipt/acknowledgement to OP No. 1 but the OP No.1 did not grant any receipt or policy certificate and told that the OP No. 2 will directly issue policy certificate covering the insurance in respect of the crop raised in the land as stated directly in the address of the Complainant. The crop raised in the land is well insured having a total insurance value of Rs. 51,600/- and 45,600/- and the total amount of sum insured comes to Rs. 97,200/-. In the year 2019 there was severe drought in Ardabahal GP and entire Kuchinda Sub-division. The crop covered under insurance was seriously damaged causing a huge loss to the Complainant. The Complainant paid the premium for a sum of Rs. 97,200/- to the OP No. 1, asked to provid services to him but the OP No. 1 did not issue any money receipt towards realization of such fees   and the OP No. 1 also did not grant any receipt towards the service charges realized by him from the Complainant which amounts to unfair trade practices by the O.P No. 1. In the year 2019, the Govt. of Odisha declared the Kuchinda Sub Division as drought affected and after crop cutting it was found that there was loss of 84% of crops in Ardabahal GP. The Complainant is entitled to get 84% of the sum insured over the insurance amount of Rs. 51,600/- & Rs. 45,600/- total comes to Rs. 97,200/- and calculating 84% over the sum insured it comes to Rs. 81,648/- and the Complainant is entitled to receive it from the insurance company OP No. 2. The OP No. 2, insurance company has paid the insurance compensation amount to the cultivator of the area but the Complainant did not receive any compensation towards loss of his crop. The Complainant made a quarry as to why the insurance amount towards the loss of his crop was not disbursed to him. After making inquiry, the Complainant could learnt that the OP No. 1 at the time of registering the norms and detail particular of land relating to the insurance has wrongly mentioned the mouza of the land as Gochhara in lieu of Jaypur Gad in Mahulpali under Kuchinda Tahasil. The Complainant went to the OP No. 1 and demanded for the copy of the insurance certificate containing the details particular of the land covered under crop insurance. On perusal, it is found that the OP No. 1 has wrongly furnished the name of the village as Gochhara instead of Jaypur Gad, Ps Mahulpali. The OP No. 1 admitted its fault and took up the matter with OP No. 2, the OP No. 2 told that the OP No. 1 is responsible for the mistake committed by him and he is liable to pay the loss sustained by the Complainant. The OP No. 1 as the service provider failed to maintain the quality of the service and in spite of the document of land covered under crop insurance was provided to him for the purpose of crop insurance, he wrongly mentioned the land of mouza as Gochhara instead of Jaypur Gad causing huge loss to the Complainant. The OP No. 2 also failed to perform his part of the contract and as such he is liable to pay the compensation as per the entitlement of the Complainant ignoring the mistake committed by the OP No. 1. The OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay of Rs. 81,648/- plus accrued interest and compensation.
2. The version of the O.P No. 1 is that the landed property is in joint possession and no partition or power of attoney, legal heir’s documents has been filed by the Complainant to proof his possession of land to cultivating the land in the year 2019. On dtd. 27.07.2019 the Complainant has submitted Xerox copy of Aadhar Card, passbook and a Bio Data of his own for the purpose of registration of his name under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana of Agriculture and farmer welfare, Govt. of India, New Delhi through on line service and he handedover the said premium receipt of amount Rs. 1032/- and Rs. 912/- to the Complainant. This is the case where the OP No. 1 is not liable for the loss of insurance amount as because the OP No. 1 handed over the receipt of insurance to the Complainant on the same day as such there is no deficiency in service from the side OP No. 1.

The OP No. 2 has not given any written version.

3. On perusal of the case of both the parties, it is found that the OP No. 1 has wrongly furnished the name of the village as Gochhara instead of Jaypur Gad,  Ps Mahulpali. It is the duty of the OP No. 1 to enter the data carefully because the OP No. 1 as the service provider failed to maintain the quality of the service and in spite of the document of land filed under crop insurance he wrongly mentioned the land mouza as Gochhara instead of Jaypur Gad causing huge loss to the Complainant. Hence, deficiency and negligence in service of the O.P No. 1 is found.  In the other hand as the insurance amount was not credited in the correct land schedule of the complainant, the deficiency and negligence in service of the O.P No. 2 is not found.                                                                                                                                      

Accordingly it is ordered that the Complaint Petition filed by the Complainant is allowed on part. The O.P No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 81,648/- along with 9% up-to-date interest from the date it become payable till the date of its payment to the Complainant, Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency in service and Rs. 50,000/- for financial loss to the Complainant as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of this Order failing which the entire amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 5^th day of Dec, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.