Adv. For the Complainant: - Sri B.S.Sathpathy
Adv. For O.Ps :- Sri R.K.Mahakur
Date of filing of the Case :-04.04.2022
Date of Order :- 04.04.2023
JUDGMENT
Fact of the case in nutshell:-
1. The petitioner who is a lady marginal farmer who has cultivable land about Ac 7-5 decimal vide holding No. 30/32 of mouza Silet Para .The complainant preferred to insured her paddy crop under PMFBY on dt. 27/07/2019 for the Kharif year 2019 depositing premium of Rs.3,724/-as non-loanee farmer at CSC Saintala vide receipt NO.040121190180554728907 for insurance coverage with Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. who is OP No1 in this case.
-2-
In due time by the year 2020 all the insured of the same village had received the crop coverage insurance benefit because of the drought declaration by the Govt. for the year 2019 except the petitioner. On the year 2021 the petitioner had run to approach office of DAO. Titilagarh and beg information through her RTI application dt.10.11.2021. The information provided to her she came to know that her address has been wrongly fed giving block address as Puintala instead of Saintala and G.P. address has been mentioned as Atgaon instead of Bhadra.
Upon receipt of the information the petitioner contacted the state head of OP.No.1 one Mrityanjaya Bhattacharya but he denied to settle the claim of the petitioner for mistake of address. For the last two years the complainant has been run Piller to post and communicate the OP but failed hence this case.
(2) To substantiate her case the complainant relied on the following documents.
(1) Xerox copy of PMFBY application receipt
(2) RTI information provided by D.A.O Titilagarh (Xerox Copy)
(3) Xerox copy of declaration and affidavit in relation to land.
(4) Xerox copy of R.O.R
(5) Affidavit of adjacent tenant of the same village.
(3) Having gone through the complaint its accompanied documents and on hearing the complainant prima facie it seemed to be a genuine case hence admitted and notice to the OPs were served and in response they appeared through their councel and filed their version.
The rival contention the Op. 1 straight rightly denied the allegations and urged to dismissed case the Op No.4 appeared but not filed any version so set experte as well as OP No. 2 and 3 did not appear in this case hence they set experte.
(4) Heard the complainant and perused the materials on record with submission and vehement denials of the learned advocate for the OP with arguments.
(5) After going through the allegation in the complainant written version filed by the OP. the evidence and documents on the record this commission found , observe and feels that the complainant deposited the insurance premium under PMFBY with Op No.1 which reflect on the application and receipt of PMFBY vide application No. 040121190180554728907 dated 27 July 2019 at CSC Saintala the status of payment shows as paid as such it is crystal clear that the premium paid with Op No.1.
The core question of this case is that the complainant after receiving the information provided by D.A.O Titilagarh through RTI came to know that her Block name and G.P. name changed to ‘Puintala’ instead of Saintala and G.P name Atgaon instead of Bhadra.
-3-
The R.T.I application dated 10.11.2021 as well as the information provided by A.D.O. Titilagarh where shows the village residence is siletpara Block Puintala and G.P. Atgaon and claim status shows nil liability. The declaration form submitted by the complainant shows the village is SiletPara , Block Saintala , G.P Bhadra Before the commission the complainant said the information after query there is no such village in the name of Siletpara under Atgaon G.P.
It is settled principle for a non loanee farmer in PMFBY required to submit necessary documentary evidence of land record/ permitted by the state Govt. their coverage details are also required to be uploaded in NCIP by the concerned CSC or authorised channel partner.
In the instant case the address of the complainant was up load to NICP as village Siletpara , Block Saintala and G.P. Bhadra but how it change to Block Puintala G.P. Atgaon again . This mistake done by the OP No.1 with a malafide intention to defeat the farmer from her welfare right, as because this is a scheme for the welfare for the farmers such type of activities should not be acceptable.
As per the revised PMFBY rule “ insurance should ensure that cultivator should not be deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors /omissions /commission of the concerned CSC or allies. In case of such errors the concerned agency shall have to make good all such loses. In the instant case the CSC had upload the exact address to the NCIP but before payment the address changed by the OP No.1 and creating such disturbance which deprived the farmer from the benefit of the welfare scheme. As such the malafide act and attitude of the Op.1 is amounts to deficiency in service . while the status of the application shows as paid , it is presume that OP No.1 received the premium and liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant.
The Hon’ble apex court in Judgments of the case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.
II (2008) CPJ(SC) held as under :-
“ Insurance company being in a dominant position often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular goods disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other when they are called upon to pay compensation this take it or leave it attitude is Cleary unwarranted not only as being bad in law but ethically indefensible.
More over one tenant of the same village namely Sanyasi Sahu who received the crop coverage benefit arising out of the same year i.e. 2019/2020 which shows that the village comes under PMFBY drought declaration by the Government.
From the aforemention circumstances we can easily concluded that the unreasonable act of the Op No.1 is amounts . to deficiency in service and this commission gives the thoughtful consideration in favour of the complainant who deserves the remedy. Hence order.
-4-
ORDER
The OP No.1 ( Royal Sundaram General Co Ltd) is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,86,232,75/- @ 9 % interest P.A to the complainant with in one month from the date of order failing which the entire amount to be paid by OP No.1 @ 12% interest P.A from the date of filing of the case till realization.
No award as to cost.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TODAY i.e DATED 04TH DAY OFAPRIL’2023.
(J.MISHRA) (R.K.TRIPATHY)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT(I/C)
