Date of filing:- 20/08/2020.                                                                               Date of Order/Judgement:-26/09/2023.                                         

                                            DISTRICT CONSUMER DIPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B  A  R  G  A  R  H

CONSUMER COMPLAINT  NO. 69 OF  2020.

Meka Sita Mahalaxmi,  aged about 55 years S/o. Meka Vera Venkat Rao, R/o. Village. Kulunda (Andhra Pada), Po. Kulunda, Ps/Tahasil. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh, Pin 768027.           

                                                                                                   Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

 (1) The Regional Manager, Union Bank of India (formally it was  Andhra Bank), At.Ist Floor

       Regional Office, Balaji Mid Town, Budharaja, Dist. Sambalpur 768004.

 (2) Branch Manager, Union Bank of India (formally it was  Andhra Bank), Attabira Branch,

       Attabira, Po/Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.

(3) Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Bargarh Branch, Bargarh, At. Canal

     Avenue, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.

                                                                                                            Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-                 :- Sri C.R. Panda, Advocate with Associates.

For the Opposite Party No.1  :-    :- Sri Sudhir Kumar Purohit, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No. 2 :-    :- Sri Sudhir Kumar Purohit, Advocate with Associates.

For the Opposite Party No.3  :-     :-Sri P.K. Mahapatra, Advocate with Associates.

                                                -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

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

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

Dt.26/09/2023.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Anju Agarwal,  Member (w) :-

1. The case of the Complainant is a loanee farmer and has incurred crop loan of Rs. 2,95,000/-(Rupees  two lakh ninety five thousand)only on Dt. 13/06/2019 for cultivation of agricultural land situated at mouza Kulunda and Bugbuga under Attabira , Ps/Dist. Bargarh. The Opposite party No.2 has debited Rs. 5,421/-(Rupees five thousand four hundred twenty one)only on Dt. 25/07/2019 towards insurance premium. During kharif 2019 the govt. notified 36.50% crop damage and the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only as the insurance benefit. The insurance has been done by the Opposite Party No.3. The Complainant being a loanee crop loan was availed from Opposite Party No.2 and the crop was insured by Opposite Party No.3 so, the Complainant is squarely coming under the definition of Consumer of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant approached Opposite Parties No.1 to No.3 several times but the Opposite Parties denied to make payment.

Being aggrieved by the act of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed this Complaint before this Commission.

2. The Case of the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite party No.2 is that the Opposite Party No.1 and  Opposite Party No.2 appeared before this Commission but did not file their version. Hence, Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 are  set exparte.
3. The case of the Opposite Party No.3 Oriental Insurance Co.ltd in its version has submitted that the Complainant cannot be termed as a Consumer. The Complaint is bad for nonjoinder of necessary party and misjoinder of parties. The Complainant has insured crop loan of Rs. 2,95,000/-(Rupees  two lakh ninety five thousand)only on Dt. 13/06/2019 for cultivation of agricultural land situated at mouza Kulunda and Bugbuga under Attabira, Ps/Dist. Bargarh and the Opposite Party No.2 has debited the requisite amount towards insurance premium i.e. Rs. 5,421/-(Rupees five thousand four hundred twenty one)only on Dt. 25/07/2019 is denied. The insurance was done by Opposite Party No.3 and the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only as the insurance benefits is denied. It is further submitted by the Opposite party No.3 that the Complainant has not deliberately mentioned the details of plot number and Khata number etc of his land for which he had availed crop insurance. As per the system prescribed in Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) banks are authorized to upload the insured farmers data mandatorily on the National Crop Insurance Portal (NCIP) and no other platform shall be used for uploading of details on portal. The Concerned intermediary is responsible for payment of claim. The Complainant was insured under Kulunda Gram Panchayat (GP) of Attabira Block but the plot number/Khata number of the land was missing on the portal.

The Opposite Party no.3 is not responsible for any claim. The Opposite Party No.3 is not deficient in its service  nor committed any unfair practive. Accordingly the complaint to be dismissed.

4. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant and  the Opposite Parties, following issues are framed:-

ISSUES

1. Is the Complainant not a Consumer of the Opposite Parties ?
2. Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in their service ?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled for  ?

Issue No.1.

            The Complainant is a having a loan A/c. No. 13001310007444 with the Opposite Party No.2, Branch Manager Union Bank of India, Attabira Branch, the Opposite Party No.1 is the Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Sambalpur. The Opposite Party No.1 deducted an amount of Rs. 5,421/-(Rupees five thousand four hundred twenty one)only on Dt. 25/07/2019 from the A/c. of the Complainant towards PMFBY 2019 insurance premium. The Opposite party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 is an intermediary to the insurance contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.3. Accordingly the  Complainant is a Consumer of the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 as a  loanee farmer and Consumer of Opposite Party No.3 as his crop is insured by paying Rs. 5,421/-(Rupees five thousand four hundred twenty one)only towards Kharif 2019 premium.

            The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2.

            During Kharif 2019, the Opposite Party No.2 deducted Rs. 5,421/-(Rupees five thousand four hundred twenty one)only towards insurance premium under PMFBY Scheme. In the Proposal the Opposite Party No.2 has not uploaded the details of plot No./Khata No. The Complainant was entitled to get Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only as the govt. declared crop loss of 36.50%.

            The Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 did not file version nor participated in the hearing for which the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 were set exparte.

            (In the collection of proposals and premium from farmers under PMFBY  guidelines it is a special condition that, those  farmers whose data is uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal shall only be eligible for Insurance coverage and accordingly the premium subsidy will also be released. In cases where farmers are denied crop insurance due to incorrect/partial/non uploading of their details on portal, concerned Banks/intermediaries shall be responsible for payment of claims to them.)

In the present Complaint as the Complainant paid the premium of Rs. 579.89/-(Rupees five hundred seventy nine and eighty nine paise)only for area insured 0.44 hector and the sum insured is Rs. 28,944.50/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand nine hundred forty four and fifty paise)only  for Kulunda GP of Attabira Block and  he is entitled for the insurance coverage and insurance subsidy.

            Due to non settlement of claim the Complainant is harassed and could not get the benefits in time like other farmers of the locality.

            The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are deficient in its service by not providing the correct data in the NCIP as a result the Opposite Party No.3 did not settle the claim. The loan is granted by the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2. As per PMFBY guidelines the role of Opposite Party No.3 is very specific. For the negligence of Opposite Party No.1 and  Opposite Party No.2 the  Opposite Party No.3 cannot be liable.

            The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.3.   

            As discussed supra the Complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

            Accordingly it is ordered.

O R D E R

The Complaint is allowed exparte against Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite party No.2 and dismissed against Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are jointly directed to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs. 10,564/-(Rupees  ten thousand five hundred sixty four)only to the Complainant within one month from the date of this Order.

   Further the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards mental harassment and Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand)only litigation expenses within one month of this Order. Failing which the entire Order will carry 9% in P.A. till realization.

Order pronounced in open court on this 26^th day of  September  2023.

   Supply free copies to the parties.  

                                                                                              Typed to my dictation

                                                                                                   and corrected by me.                                                                                            

I  agree,

( Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)                                                                    (Smt. Anju Agarwal)                                                             Dt.26/09/2023                                                                                            Dt.26/09/2023

 P r e s i d e n t                                                                                          M e m b e r (w)