DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SUBARNAPUR
C.C. No.05 of 2019
1. Research Academy for Rural Enrichment (RARE) represented by its representative, At/P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur.
2. Santosh Pujhari, S/o. Late Jagadish Pujhari, R/o. Kirtipur, P.O. Khaliapali, District - Subarnapur,
………….. Complainants
Vrs.
1. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. At/P.O. Plate B & C, 5th Floor Block - 1
2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. Regional Office represented by its Regional Manager, 87, 1st Floor The Mother, Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751007.
3. The District Magistrate & Collector, Subarnapur, At/P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur.
4. Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sonepur, At/P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur
5. Tahasildar, - Chairman, BLJC, Sonepur, At/P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri G.S. Panda
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 & 2 …………. Sri S. Hota
Advocate for the O.P. No.3 to 5 …………. Sri B. K. Dash
Present
1. Sri U.N. Purohit, President
2. Sri H. Padhan Member
Date of Filing Dt.12.03.2019
Date of Hearing Dt.14.02.2023
Date of Order Dt.27.02.2023
J U D G E M E N T
By Sri U.N.Purohit, P.
The complainant files complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief fact of the complaint is that the complainant No.1 is Voluntary Consumer Organization filed complaint alongwith complainant No.2. The complainant No.2 is Sebayat of Dadhibaban Mahaprabhu Bije at Kirtipur. The complainant No.2 is son of one Marfatdat Jagadish Pujhari. Jagadish Pujhari, Radhagobinda Pujhari, Brundaban Pujhari, Sashibhusan Pujhari, Narayan Pujhari,
-: 2 :-
Dillip Pujhari and Kunti Khamari, Sudam Pujhari, Sambhu Pujhari, Purnabasi Pujhari all are Sebayat of Sri Sri Dadhibaban Mahaprabhu Bije at Kirtipur. They are enjoying the land by personal cultivation as per mutual consent and discharging sebapuja duty of the Deity. They own the land on behalf of deity in four branches, each branches entitled 1/4th share of total land in their possession. The complainant No.2 is cultivating total land of Ac.10.000 dec. from Khata No.204 area Ac.5.500 dec. and Khata No.79 area Ac.4.500 dec. In the year 2017 paid Rs.3600/- crop insurance premium for the above Ac.10.000 dec. of land on 30.07.2017 under PMFBY. The O.P. No.1 and 2 accepted the policy. In that year village Kirtipur under Mayurudan Panchayat having declared crop loss 47.52% and compensation amount calculated Rs.84,600/- as per PMFBY. The complainant approached insurance company for payment of insurance claim but the O.P. vide letter No.3710 dt.09.11.2018 addressed to Tahasildar and letter No.3368 dt.05.10.2018 to the complainant repudiate the claim on frivolous ground. The objection raised by the O.Ps. not tenable in the eye of law and repudiation is not justified there is no such norms or principles in the PMFBY the copy of repudiation letter has been marked to Collector – cum – District Magistrate, Subarnapur for investigation as he is Nodal Officer of the scheme. The same also addressed to Tahasildar, Sonepur for necessary action but no action has been taken as the insurance company avoid to pay the claim and the Nodal Officer not taken action, the complainant filed complaint claiming for deficiency of service and negligence by the O.Ps. thereby the complainant suffered financial loss, the O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable to pay the claim amount with 18% interest. Rs.20,000/- compensation towards mental agony, harassment and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. The complainant relies on the documents (i) Money Receipt issued by the insurance company, letter No.3710 addressed to Tahasildar Letter No.3661 issued by insurance company to the complainant, Xerox copy of R.I. report, R.O.R. of Khata No.204 and 79.
-: 3 :-
The O.P. No.1 and 2 filed version claiming that the company implementing PMFBY on behalf of Central Government and State Government. The scheme was introduce in the year 2016 in entire country, State Government implemented the scheme Kharif – 2016 State Government are also given freedom to notify the crop and unit of insurance. For Khatif 2017 season notify Panchayat insurance Unit for paddy and Block for groundnuts, Maize, Redgram etc. The O.P. was allotted one cluster comprising of 6 Districts in Odisha. All farmers including share croppers and tenants farmers growing the notify crop in the notified area are eligible for coverage. Farmers availing crop loans for the notified crop from commercial Banks, Regional Rural Banks and District Co-operative Banks are compulsorily covered and for Non loanee farmers the scheme is optional. A nominal premium of 2% or actuarial rate whichever is lower is charged for Food crops and oil seeds and for annual horticultural and annual commercial crops 5% or actuarial rate whichever is lower is charged. Further the compensation is on area approach basis, which means as per Unit notified by the Government all the insured farmer of that unit would receive compensation whether individually affected or not, if the given unit entitlement accrues, due to specific reason of the scheme as per the crop yield data provided by Economics & Statistics through cooperation Deptt. Govt. of Odisha based on 4 numbers of crop cutting experiments for G.Ps. notified area only. In case of loanee farmers financial institutions are advising to credit the amount to the loan account and in case of non loanee the claim amount credited directly to the Bank account of farmer. The process is automatically followed. Nobody has to lodge a claim to be eligible for compensation.
The O.P. vividly explain about the PMFBY Scheme. Khata No.204 recorded in the name of Sri Sri Dadhibaban Mahaprabhu Bije at Kirtipur (Trust Land) the land is cultivated on share basis by 4(four) Sebayat , Marfatdar, the complainant is son of one Marfatdar. Khata No.79 belongs to deceased father of complainant as ancestral land, so he is eligible cultivator. The complainant is cultivating landed
-: 4 :-
property of Khata No.204 as Sebayat alongwith 3(three) other branches and cultivating lands of khata No.79 as ancestral properties. The complainant is cultivated 3.48 acres of lands of Khata No.79 as sole cultivator and cultivating 5.5 acres of lands from Khata No.79 in possession of Sri Sri Dadhibaban Mahaprabhu Bije at Kirtipur.
The O.P. No.1 and 2 admitting they have received land record, bank account details, and identity proof. Accepting of premium does not any circumstances guarantee payment of claims. The premium is received by the O.P. on the last date of receipt of applications. Checking of documents submitted by the complainant after cut up date to check insurable documents. Further they admitted the percentage of claim declared in Mayurudan G.P. but disputed the amount calculated by the complainant in complaint petition. The percentage of compensation provided the insured farmers have insurable interest on the land they are cultivating and all other supporting documents are correct.
The complainant claims for land cultivated by him in Khata No.204 and Khata No.79. The O.P. has repudiated claim of the complainant referring the letter No.3710.
The O.P. had written letter to Tahasildar, Sonepur making copy to the District Collector to intimate about the anomalies of Khata No.204. Khata No.204 is trust land owing by Sri Sri Dadhibaban Mahaprabhu Bije at Kirtipur. The land under this khata is being shared and cultivated 4 number of Sebayat and their heirs in mutual agreement agreed to scheme a farmer insured a land on which he has no direct or indirect ownership and he has no insurable interest so we had informed the Tahasildar, Sonepur that Khata No.204 cannot be rightful insured by the complainant and claim is not payable. But this O.P. has not denied claim, compensation for Khata No.79 which is rightful cultivated and claim has already been paid. There is negligence or deficiency on the part of this O.P. for settlement of the claim.
-: 5 :-
For the insured Khata No.204 Kirtipur is disputed by the O.P. which is detected during scrutiny. Khata No.204 belonged to and recorded in the name of Sri Sri Dadhibaban Mahaprabhu Bije at Kirtipur total area of Khata No.204 is Ac.24.000. This particular khata divided equally to four farmers as Marfatdar Sebayat. The complainant No.2 is sole son and legal heir of one of the Sebayat, so he enjoy 1/4th land of khata No.204. However the complainant insured 6 acres of land consisting of 8 plots and has insured this land, the 1/4th land is not insurable as Khata is not insured name. Land is in the name of Trust, insured is not absolute owner of the land. This is a gross misutilisation of PMFBY by the complainant to avail crop insurance and subsequent claim of loss i.e. not own by him. Crop insurance to share croppers and tenant farmer is not allowed under the guideline of PMFBY, thus, this O.P. is jointly and right in not paying the claims for khata No.204 in Kirtipur village under Mayurudan G.P.
O.P. No.3 to 5 in their version stated that, O.P. No.3 Chairman, and O.P. No.4 convener of PMFBY and they have taken step to aware the farmer of their benefit. They sincerely perform their duty make awareness to the farmers for the larger interest of the farmer community. The DPMU conducting top 14 of the notified crop and send the crop cutting report to the Director of Economics & Statistics Deptt. who after due verification submit the report to the corporation department, after scrutiny cooperation department submitted crop loss report to the insurance company for final claim. The CDAO, Collector and Tahasildar are not related with the claim.
On scrutiny of the contention of the parties it seems only dispute for payment of crop loss compensation is repudiated by the insurance company i.e. the complainant is neither recorded tenant nor absolute owner of the land. The land insured by the complainant is belong to Sri Sri Dadhibaban Mahaprabhu Bije at Kirtipur so as the land belongs to Trust property the claim of compensation has been withheld by the insurance company O.P. No.1 and 2.
-: 6 :-
In this back ground, the vital question arises about the relationship of complainant to the land with the rights accrued to insured the crops so it is wise to answer the following questions.
i). Is the complainant having any right to insured the crops against his possessory right being hereditary trustee of Lord Sri Sri Dadhibaban Mahaprabhu Bije at Kirtipur.
ii). Is the complainant hereditary trustee and what is his right over the property.
iii). Is the complainant is a consumer and whether the complainant is entitled for any relief.
All the above questions taken together and answered as follows :-
It is not disputed by the parties the land belongs to Sri Sri Dadhibaban Mahaprabhu Bije at Kirtipur and the ancestor of the complainant alongwith other co-sebayat recorded as Marfatdar of deity Sri Sri Dadhibaban Mahaprabhu Bije at Kirtipur. They are enjoying the land under the sebayati rights under Succession. Khata No.204 recorded in the name of Sri Sri Dadhibaban Mahaprabhu Bije at Kirtipur Marfatdar Brundaban Pujahari, S/o. Sabda Pujahari, Jagadish Pujhari, S/o. Madan Pujahari, Radhagobinda Pujhari, Sashibhusan Pujhari, Narayan Pujhari, Dillip Pujhari and Kunti Khamari, all are son and D/o. Kailash Pujahari, Sudam Pujhari, S/o. Bhabagrahi Pujahari, Purnabasi Pujhari, W/o. Bhabagrahi Pujahari has been recorded in the R.O.R. on rayati status.
Looking to the R.O.R. & R.I. report it seems that the Marfatdar status has been succeeded by the recorded Marfatdar from their recorded ancestor. Under the provisions of OHRE Act Section 3 (vi) defined “HERIDATARY TRUSTEE” means Trustee of religious institutions succession to his office devolves by hereditary rights since the time of founder or is regulated by custom or is specifically provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of succession is in force.
-: 7 :-
The R.O.R. established that they are succeeding the right of Marfatdar as such they are hereditary trustee and that is not disputed or denied by the O.Ps. So far right of hereditary trustee is concerned they have right of possession and enjoyment the property in lieu of service as per custom. In case of any disqualification of their right as per Section 35 Sub-Section 4 of O.H.R.E. Act the hereditary Trustee so disqualified may allowed such maintenance as may be fixed by the commissioner. Concerning the financial condition enroll made on this behalf. The Office of hereditary Trustee cannot be vacant and the Commissioner in case of vacancy on application U/s.36 appoint successor U/s.39 of O.H.R.E. Act, so it is presumed that Sri Sri Dadhibaban Mahaprabhu Bije at Kirtipur is the absolute owner of the property and the ancestors of the complainant alongwith their co-sharer are succeeding the property under sebayati rights, they are entitled to save the interest and developed the property as they are beneficiary as well as entitled for maintenance of the family out of the property in discharge of their seba puja. The R.I. report shows that the complainant is in possession of Ac.5.5 acres of land continuously and cultivating the same. So we conclude that he has right to insured the crop for anticipating any loss or damage in due course. Hence the complainant is a consumer. The right of the complainant to insured crop damage is absolute right being hereditary trustee. Further the O.P. admitted in para 3 of version that all farmer including share croppers and tenant farmers growing the notified crops in notified area are eligible for coverage and repudiation the same, on the same ground is unfair trade practice, deficiency in providing proper service to avoid legitimate compensation to the complainant.
The O.Ps. No.1 and 2 admitted the crop loss of the Mayurudan G.P. They admitted Govt. declared 47.82% crop loss for G.P. and G.P. is the Unit for assessed of crop loss. The complainant has already received Rs.30,298.75 which has been disbursed to his account for Khata No.79 for 1.408 hector of land. In khata No.204 the insurance company repudiate for area 2.428 hector. The O.P. No.1 and 2 have submitted the formula of calculation for the loss which already been compensated.
-: 8 :-
The O.Ps. have calculated compensation of Rs.30,298.75 for 1.408 hector of land on that basis adopting that any calculation formula we think it fit to award Rs.70,000/- without much calculation of complex mathematics, rounding to next figure. Further the complainant has run this commission for his legitimate claim as the O.Ps. denied for payment on flimsy ground. There by they are deficiency in service and involved in unfair trade practice caused harm to the complainant as such liable to compensate for the sufferings of complainant Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation will meet the ends of justice.
O R D E R
Hence we conclude and directed the O.P. No.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.95,000/- in total to the complainant within one month of this order, failing which a penal interest 12% will carry till final payment. Complaint is allowed.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal of the parties.
File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this judgment.
Dated the 27th day of February 2023
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Padhan Sri U.N.Purohit
Member President
Dt.27.02.2023 Dt.27.02.2023
