Date of filing:- 06/03/2018.
Date of Order:-11/03/2020.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 26 of 2018
Ukar Kalet, S/o Puran Kalet, aged about 38(thirty eight) years, R/o/ Village. Katapali, Po. Kharmunda, Ps. Bijepur, Dist. Bagarh (Odisha) ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Bargarh Branch, At/Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh (Odisha).
The Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard G.I.C.Ltd.3rd Floor Plot No. 29(twenty nine), Anuj Building, Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007.
..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri D.Acharya, Advocate with associate Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Sri B.Panda, Advocate with associate Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two) :- Sri A.K.Dash (A), Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.11/03/2020. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case;-
In pursuance to the Provision U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the Complainant has preferred to file the case against the Opposite Parties pertaining to the allegation envisaged hereunder.
The case of the Complainant is that he has obtained a crop Loan of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh)only from the Opposite Party No.1(one) having being a Kishan Credit Card holder vide his Account No-063751000026 for the purpose of raising Kharif Crop in his land, and in the mean time on implementation of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana by the Government of India under certain prescribed operational guide lines for coverage of loanee farmers in insuring their crops for providing financial security to the farmer against any natural distress and as such the Opposite Party No.2(two) has undertaken the job of agricultural insurance in the Bargarh District.
And as per the scheme the Opposite Party No.1(one) as the Nodal Bank has to collect premium for the said insurance and to remit the same to the Opposite Party No.2(two), accordingly the Opposite Party No.1(one) debited an amount of Rs.5,523/-(Rupees five thousand five hundred twenty three)only from the said Loan account of the Complainant and remitted the same to the Opposite Party No.2(two) towards the premium for the Kharif 2016-17 season crop.
And unfortunately the paddy crop raised by the Complainant over his Acrs.10.71 dc of his land got completely damaged due to adverse weather condition with others resulting to which the Government after observing all paraphernalia and technicalities declared the crop damage @74%(seventy four percent) in the said area of the Complainant namely Bairagipali Gram Panchayat under Bijepur Block wherein he had raised his said paddy crop for the year 2016-2017.
In furtherance to his case, on getting information from other farmers of the area that they have already got their compensatory insurance amount, he asked the Opposite Party No.1(one) to credit his insurance amount in his said account, but the Opposite Party No.1(one) deferred on different pretext and ultimately refused to make any payment to him on the ground that the Complainant has failed to produce any proof of his crop damage before him, which is as per him is a violation of the principle enunciated with the scheme where under the sole intention of the Government is to provide facilities to the farmers under the declaration of the notified area by the Government and as such the farmers are not bound down to produce any proof to that effect rather it is the duty of the Opposite Party No.1(one) to ensure the payment to the farmers/Complainant.
And being debarred from getting the facility of insurance amount as per the scheme of the Government, the Complainant served the Opposite Party No.1(one) with Notice by registered post which was returned being refused by him, so seeing no other alternative the Complainant approached before the D.M & collector Bargarh with an application in his grievance cell but to no effect, which of such acts of the Opposite Party No.1(one) amounts to deficiencies of service and unfair trade practice and as the Opposite Party No.2(two) also did not pay any heed to it, he is also liable for the same liabilities and are jointly liable to compensate the Complainant for the mental, financial and physical harassment undergone by him due to such acts of the Opposite Parties, thus has filed the case before the Honorable Forum with a prayer to compensate him with an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh)only against his loan amount incurred for the purpose with interest and an amount of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only in lieu of his mental and financial and physical harassment and litigation expenses.
And in substantiating his case the Complainant has relied on the following documents,
Account statement.
Office copy of the pleader Notice served on the Opposite Party No.1(one).
Refused postal packet containing the pleader Notice.
Acknowledgment of receipt of grievance petition by the office of the Collector, Bargarh.
Reply of the Opposite Party No.1(one) on the grievance.
Crop loss declaration of the Govt.
Perused the pleading of the Complainant and it’s accompanied documents and on hearing his counsel it seemed to be a genuine case hence admitted the same and Notice was served on the Opposite Parties for their appearance and for filling of their version, accordingly both of the Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum through their respective Advocates and submitted their respective version.
The rival contention so far as the version of the Opposite Party No.1(one) is concerned it has denied the very status of the Complainant with an averment that by the time the scheme of the Govt. for the area as has been claimed by the Complainant, by that time the Complainant was not even a Loanee of his concern, he had not obtained any loan by that time, but he has obtained the said loan in the month of the December 2015 and by the time the cutoff date for submission of the premium as stipulated in the scheme was July 2015 as such the premium amount could not be paid to the Opposite Party No.2(two).
The sole point of denial by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the claim of the Complainant with regard to his insurance amount is that by the time the scheme was declared by the Government, at that time the Complainant has not obtained any loan from his Bank as such was not entitled to any benefit of insurance claim for the year 2015-1016. But in his averment mentioned in paragraph No.22(twenty two) that he has debited an amount of Rs.5,523/-(Rupees five thousand five hundred twenty three)only on Dt. 20 August 2016 from the account of Complainant towards the premium for insurance for Kharif crops for the year 2016-2017 season, thus in his averment has claimed that due to such circumstances he has not committed any sort of deficient action in rendering him service and as such is not liable for any action there under, and in support of his case has relied on the documents as Annexure-A to E.
Also the Opposite Party No. 2(two) appeared before the Forum through his advocate and filed his independent version wherein he has denied to have caused any deficiencies in rendering his part of service towards Complainant on the ground that under the PMFBY guide lines of the Government of India the mandate procedure is as per data provided from Opposite Party No.1(one) Bank through which the insurance premium of the Complainant farmer insurance amount was remitted to him with the details particular of the Complainant farmer as coming under Katapali Gram Panchayat under Barpali Block under Bargarh district and as per the data provided by the Government of India relating to the crops damage has got no deficit claim as it was not effected with crop damage as such has claimed not have caused any deficient action towards the Complainant and thus not liable for any action there under and in substantiating his claim has relied on the operation Guidelines of PMFBY of Government of India only.
While the hearing of the case commenced it reveals from the materials available in the record that at the first instance at the time of filing of the case, the Complainant had filed the case claiming the compensatory amount of insurance of his crops for the year 2015-2016 making both the Opposite Parties as liable and accordingly, but subsequently thereafter the Complainant has filed an amendment petition to amend the relevant portion of his pleading wherein the particular year of claim as for the year 2016-2017 instead of Dt.02.15.2016 on the ground stated therein in his said petition after dully serving the copy on both the Opposite Parties and the same petition was allowed by the Forum and as such the claiming year of the same was treated to be 2016-2017 instead of 2016-2017 to which the Opposite Party No.2(two) also subsequently amended his version stating therein his pleas that the premium amount of insurance was remitted to his concern by the Opposite Party No.1(one) but with a Complainant /farmer’s particular Annexure as the land situated at Katapali under Barpali Block and as per the required information and guide lines from the Government the same area was not affected by the crop damage resulting to which the insurance amount was not disbursed as such in his view has got no deficiencies in rendering service and is liable thereof, but the Opposite Party No.1(one) continued with is earlier stand.
In this context having regard to the materials available before the Honorable Forum, it is clearly established from the assertion made in paragraphs No-22(twenty two) & 23(twenty three) of the version of the Opposite Party No.1(one) that the Complainant has obtained a loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh)only from which the Opposite Party No.1(one) has remitted Rs.5,523/-(Rupees five thousand five hundred twenty three)only towards crop insurance for the crop raised in his land at Bairagipali Gram Panchayat under Bijepur Block but has denied to the claim of the Complainant on the sole ground that he has claimed for the insurance amount for the 2015-16 as by that time he was not a loanee of his Bank so he is not entitled for the same though it was within his knowledge as being a party to the case having being represented through his Advocate who has been in active participation in the regular proceeding of the case in the Forum and quite aware of the amendment of the pleading of the Complainant pertaining to the year of claim for the insurance against the crop damage, but then also did not bother to take any step to represent properly.
On the contrary the averment made by the Opposite Party No.2(two) in his amended version in paragraph No-6(six), that the Insurance Premium amount has been remitted to it’s office by the Opposite Party No.1(one) with a Complainant/farmer particular Annexure as Katapali Gram Panchayat under Barpali Block instead of Bairagipali G.P. under Bijepur Block for which it was not reimbursed as it was not coming under the schedule area as declared by the Government of India to have been affected by crop damage, without following the guide lines prescribed by the Government of India in clause (c) point no- i to ii because had he been active in following the guideline he could have ascertained the fact as has been narrated by him in his version and could have informed the Opposite Party No.1(one) about the same and could have intimated the same to the Complainant too and the fault if at all were there could have been rectified to enable Complainant to get the insurance amount in time without going to the litigation and mental, physical and financial harassment.
Therefore in view of the above facts and circumstances it is found to be proved that due to the sheer negligence of the Opposite Parties the Complainant has been emburdened with crop loss and being debarred from getting the insurance benefit also frustrating the very purpose of the Government to facilitate the poor farmer at the time of their need and also put the complainant under heavy pressure of crop loss with financial loss and mental agony, which amounts to deficiencies of service and for which both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable as when the Complainant put his grievance before the authorities of the district administration against the Opposite Parties for non-payment of his due of insurance claim and the Opposite Parties were called on by the authorities to reply as to why the payment was not made to the Complainant and their reply justifying their denial instead of scrutinizing their cause of such incident, as had they been so careful of the claim of the Complainant he would not have suffered but on the contrary both the Opposite Parties have tried to shift their individual responsibilities on each other putting the Complainant in to heavy loss both financially and mentally. So having regard to the benevolent provision of the Act and the very pious scheme of the Government of India to safe guard the misery of the farmers at large including the present Complainant and keeping in our view on the callous attitude of the Opposite Parties our consensus view is expressed in favor of the Complainant. Thus the Complainant is entitled for the relief as has been sought for us.
In view of our opinion and consensus view the Complainant is entitled to a sum assured amount of Rs.2,02,059.14/-(Rupees two lakh two thousand fifty nine)only in accordance with the formula envisaged in the Guide lines provided with the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yoyana for which the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable. Accordingly our Order follows.
O R D E R.
Hence in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances the Opposite Parties are being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay an amount Rs.2,02,059.14/-(Rupees two lakh two thousand fifty nine and fourteen paise)only with an interest @ 8%(eight percent) per annum from the date of filing of this case till the date of Order to the Complainant and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only in lieu of his mental, financial and physical harassment within thirty days of receipt of this order in default of which the total amount would carry an interest @ 12 %(twelve percent) per annum till the actual realization of the total amount.
In the result the the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties and the same being pronounced in the Open Forum is disposed off to-day i.e. on Dt.11.03.2020.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W).
Uploaded by
Sri Dusmanta Padhan
Office Assistant, Bargarh.
