Date of filing:- 10/02/2021.

Date of Order:-27/05/2024.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B A R G A R H (ODISHA).

Consumer Complaint No. 16 of  2021.

            Minaketan Barik, aged about 32(thirty two) years S/o Rama Chandra Barik, R/o village & P.O. Phulapali (Kushanpuri) Ps/Tahasil- Barpali, Dist. Bargarh.

                                                                        .....       .....     .....                     Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

1. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bargarh Branch, At/Po/Ps/Tahasil/ Dist. Bargarh (Odisha).
2. The Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard G.I.C. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Plot No. 29, Anuj Building, Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007.
3. The Legal Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Bhubaneswar, IDCO Towers, 6^th Floor, Janapath, Bhubaneswar-751022(Odisha).
4. The Legal Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Bhubaneswar, 4^th Floor, Alok Bharati Towers Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007(Odisha)                                    ......      .....            ......Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-            Sri M.Sahu, Advocate with associates.

For the Opposite Party  No.1(one):-    Sri M.K.Agrawal, Advocate with associates.

For the Opposite Party  No.2(two):-    Sri A.K.Dash(A), Advocate with associates.

For the Opposite Party  No.3(three):-Sri A.K.Dash(B), Advocate with associates.

For the Opposite Party  No.4(four):-   Ex-parte.

                                                            -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra               .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agrawal             .....            .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.27/05/2024.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President:-   

1)         The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant had obtained a crop loan from the Bank/Opposite Party No.1(one). He is operating his transactions with the Opposite Party No.1(one) through the Account No. 737400010000. The Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) are the insurance company who have undertaken the job of agricultural insurance in the district of Bargarh for the year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Complainant has availed crop loan for an amount of ₹70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousand)only, ₹50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only, ₹65,000/-(Rupees sixty five thousand)only respectively from the Opposite Party No.1(one) and on 28-07-2017, 25-07-2018 and 29-07-2019 the Opposite Party No.1(one) as per guideline debited ₹1,446/-(Rupees one thousand four hundred forty six)only, ₹1,400/-(Rupees one thousand four hundred)only and ₹1,404/-(Rupees one thousand four hundred four)only respectively from the account of the Complainant towards premium for crop insurance for the Kharif 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 season crop. The Complainant had cultivated paddy crops over his Ac 3.77 dec of cultivated land. Due to adverse condition the crops so cultivated by the Complainant got completely damaged and the Government after observing all paraphernalia and technicalities have declared crop damage under Bargarh Block i.e. the area of cultivation of the Complainant for Kharif 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 season in respect of paddy crop. The Complainant learnt from fellow farmers in the last part of September-2020 that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has been disbursing crop insurance compensation amount to farmers having their account with the Opposite Party No.1(one) whose crop insurance premium have been debited for crop damages of different sessions. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1(one) to disburse crop insurance compensation amount and to credit the same in his account. But the Opposite Party No.1(one) deferred the matter on different pretext and in the last week of December-2020 i.e. on 29-12-2020 refused to make payment of crop insurance compensation on the ground that the borrower has not approached the Bank with proof of crop loss for settlement of the claim. It is the duty of the Opposite Parties to disburse crop insurance compensation by way of crediting the same in the account of the borrower as per the percentage of crop damage report of Govt. The Complainant has not role to play to provide proof of crop loss for settlement of the insurance claim and it is the responsibility of the Govt. to enquire and assess the crops loss in the area of the Gram Panchayat and the demand of Opposite Party No.1(one) to furnish proof of crop loss by the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission.

2)         The case of the Opposite Parties is that Opposite Party No.1(one), Opposite Party No.2(two) and Opposite Party No.3(three) filed version. Opposite Party No.4(four) did not appear and set ex-parte. The Opposite Party No.1(one), Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bargarh Branch submitted that the case is not maintainable and denied that the Complainant is operating his transaction with the Opposite Party No.1(one) through the Account No. 737400010000.

3)         The Opposite Party No.2(two) ICICI Lombard G.I.C. Ltd submitted that the Opposite Party No.2(two) was the implementing agency for Kharif Season 2016 only at Bargarh and no premium debited or collected from the present Complainant for Kharif Season 2016. The Opposite Party No.1(one) debited premium in the month of July 2017, July-2018 and July 2019 means it's a case of Kharif Season 2017, 2018 and 2019. In these Kharif Seasons the Opposite Party No.2(two) was not implementing agency at Bargarh. The Opposite Party No.2(two) is the implementing agency for Kharif Season 2016 only at Bargarh. Hence the present complaint case is not maintainable against Opposite Party No.2(two).

4)         The Opposite Party No.3(three) submitted that basing on the date available on the PMFBY portal the insurance companies carry out premium reconciliation and claim calculation and the said data is entered in the Govt. PMFBY portal by the Banks or CSC or the farmers directly and government is the custodian of the said data but not the insurance company and the name of the Complainant Minaketan Barik in respect of his insurance is not available in data based downloaded from Government portal. As such it can be presumed from the said portal that the Complainant has never insured his crop by paying necessary premium. Hence he is not a consumer and the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.

5)         Perused of complaint petition, version and documents filed by the Parties and following issues are framed :-

Issues

1. Whether the case is maintainable ?
2. Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in service ?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief ?

Issue No.1(one)

6)         The Complainant has made party to the Main Branch, Pubjab National Bank, Bargarh. But the Complainant is the account holder of Barpali Branch. All the branches comes under main branch. When the Complainant made party to main branch, there is no non-joinder of necessary party and the case is maintainable. The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2(two)

7)         After perusal of record it reveals that the Complainant is an account holder of Barpali Branch of Pubjab National Bank bearing Account No. 7374000100005539. As per account statement on 28-07-2017, 25-07-2018 and 29-07-2019 the Opposite Party debited premium for PMFBY Kharif Season for 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively for an amount of ₹1,400/-(Rupees one thousand four hundred)only, ₹1,400/-(Rupees one thousand four hundred)only and ₹1,404/-(Rupees four hundred four)only respectively. As per the submission of Opposite Party No.3(three) as per portal data the Complainant had never insured his crop. It was the duty of the Opposite Party to disburse the premium where the Opposite Party debited the amount. It means the Opposite Party has not debited the premium amount to the insurance company. Accordingly the Bank/Opposite Party No.1(one) is deficient in service. The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.3(three)

8)         For deficiency in service of the Opposite Party the Complainant is entitled to get relief. The issue is answered accordingly.

            As per supra discussion the following order passed:-

                                                            O  R  D  E  R

9)         The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.1(one), and dismissed against Opposite Party No.2(two), No.3(three) and No.4(four). The Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to settle the insurance claim of the complaint within 45(forty five) days from the date of this Order and intimate the branch office. Further the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay ₹20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only compensation for deficiency in service and ₹5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only for litigation expenses to the Complainant. Failing which the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.

            Order pronounced in the open court on 27^th day of May 2024.

                        Supply free copies to the Parties.

                                                                                             Typed to my dictation

                                                                                              and corrected by me.

                                    I agree,                                            ( Smt.Jigeesha Mishra)

                                                                                                    P r e s i d e n t.

                       (Smt. Anju Agrawal)

                             M e m b e r(w).