Adv. For the Complainant: - Sri Mukunda Dev Patel
Adv. For O.P1 :- - Sri Ashok Kumar Sahoo,& Sri Bikash Kumar Mishra
Adv. For O.P2 :- - Self
Date of filing of the Case :-20.8.2022
Date of Order :- 29.08.2023
JUDGMENT
Facts of the Case in nutshell :-
1. The complainant had taken an agricultural loan from ICICI Bank Bolangir Branch vide loan A/C No. 052551000055 on dt. 18.07.2017 and according to the provision of Central Government in the PMFY a sum of Rs.1,665,20 Debited from the loan account of the complainant . In due course of time in 2017 the agriculture was worstly effected and the government declare drought of 60% crop loss for the Bolangir Sadar Block and being a loanee and Comes under Block 1 Sadar Bolangir the complainant entitled for compensation.
The complainant is not a defaulter avail a KCC from the financing Bank.
The complainant raised the issue before the B.M. ICICI Bank Bolangir Branch but the B.M. avoid the matter . After proper inquiry the complainant came to know that due to erroneous act of the B.M of ICICI the premium amount not deposited to the insurance head and the complainant debarred from the insurance benefit which he was entitled to receive . The complainant at last sent a pleader notice to settle the issue but the B.M acted like deaf and dumb and all the request of the complainant was of no use . Hence this case.
-2-
2. To substantiate his case the complainant relies on the following documents namely.
- Xerox copy of the statement of Account dt.10.03.2022
- Xerox copy of the pleader notice
- Xerox copy of Aadhar Card of complainant
3. Having gone through the complainant it’s accompanied documents and on hearing the complainant prima facie it seemed to be a genuine case hence admitted and notice to the OP was served and in response they appeared through his councel and filed the written version. On rival contention the OP ICICI , Bank , Bolangir in its written version averred that there is no prima facie case against the Bank the complainant is not a consumer. There is no deficiency in service and totally denied the allegation against him in the complainant petition . The complainant is not maintainable hence likely to be dismissed but in Para No.14 of the written version in clause (b) The OP admitted the complainant had availed a Kissan credit Card vide account bearing number 052551000055 in clause (c)The OP admitted that as per guideline of the PMFBY the farmer availing seasonal agricultural operation loan would be compulsorily covered under PMFBY scheme. That in further once of such arrangement the OP bank takes a one-time authorization for all the loanee farmers for debiting the crop insurance premium in accordance with the notification issued by the respective State Government .
To strengthening his case the Ops filed the following documents.
- Copy of operational guidelines of PMFBY effective from Kharif 2020
- The Xerox copy of the Application Status Form created at 08/08/2018
4. Heard the complainant and perused the material on record with submission and vehement denials of the learned advocate for the OP with argument.
5. We have heard councel of both the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and written version available on the record and taking the facts and circumstances in to consideration this commission feels three issue emerged for consideration.
I . Whether the complaint is maintainable ?
2. Whether the complainant has proved his case and the deficiency in service on the
part of the OP ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation it so, quantum of such
compensation ?
Issue No.1
Regarding the maintainability of the case the OP party nowhere whisper a word regarding the limitation of filing of the CC rather averred that the complainant is not a consumer As
-3-
because the consumer is a account holder of the OP Bank the C.P. Act 2019 states as follows Sec 2 Sub Sec (7) clause (ii) consumer means any person who hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose. and service defined in sec 2 sub Sec 42 service means service of any description which made available to potential user and includes , but not limited the provision of facilities in connection with Banking , Financing , insurance transport , processing , supply of electrical or other energy telecom boarding or lodging both housing construction entertainment ,amusement or the purveying of news or other information but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. Hence the Complainant is a consumer and in broad sense the work done by the Op is in purview of the definition of service as such the case in maintainable and decided on merit.
Issue No. 2
The complainant to strengthen his case relied on the statement of account supplied by the OP on dt.10/03/2022 where it is clearly mention that on dt.18.07.2017 the complainant took the Kharif loan out of which a sum of Rs.1,66,520/- was deducted as premium of PMFBY 2017 Kharif and on that year due to crop loss the Government declare 60% of crop loss of Block No.1 Bolangir Sadar but the complainant debarred from the insurance benefit which is a welfare scheme of the government. As per the version of the Op in Para No.14 clause (b) the OP admitted that the complainant is a kCC holder , in the same Para in clause (c) the OP admitted that the OP Bank follow the guideline of (PMFBY) and take one time authorization from all the loanee farmers for debiting the crop insurance premium in accordance with the notification issued by the respective state government.
More over the complainant filed the dispute regarding 2017 but the OP States about 2018 and filed the application status copy created in 08/08/2018 . as such the Op suppressing the material fact of 2017 neither the OP filed the statement of account of 2017 nor the payment status of ( National Crop Insurance Potal) (NCIP) status as paid of insurance premium by the Op which amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deceptive trade practice . The OPS malafide omission or commission leads to foul play for which the complainant suffered a lot which is unreasonable amounts to deficiency in service.
More over as per the operational guide line of ?(PMFBY) in Para 17-5-9 stated different option for entry of details of enrolled farmers on NCIP are available for bank branches in a more transparent and authentic manner Bank branch can upload the details of insured farmers through online application made. Banks are required to upload /enter the information continuously with out waiting for last day for premium debit and data entry in Para 17 – 5- 12 it is stated that Banks need to debit farmers share of premium in last 7 days up to enrolment cut-
-4-
off date. During this period the banks may also prepare the final list of farmers who have opted out and all eligible loanee farmer to be covered in Revised PMFBY – regarding collection of proposal and premium from farmers (vi) 17-9 The concerned branches of banks and Nodal Banks / DCCBS in case of PACS will upload the details of individual insured farmers ( both loanee and non-loanee) as prescribe in online application form available on NCIP or CBS integration module and submit the same within cut off date as per the seasonality is remitted /the banks / PACS must also ensure the premium amount is remitted to the concerned insurance company electronically within the stipulated time failing which they shall be responsible for payment of the claim in this case the OPS fails to prove that they have paid the premium which reflected in NCIP 2017. In revised PMFBY clause (xvii)n Para 35-5-2-13 status – Bank should ensure that cultivator are not be deprived of any benefit and the scheme due to errors / omission/ commission of the concerned PACS / Branches band in case of such errors . the concerned agencies shall have to make good all such losses.
From the above discussion the complainant proved that due to the negligence of the Bank the premium was not reflected in NCIP 2017. Issue No.2 is answer accordingly issue No.3 in view of the finding in issue No.1 and 2 we have to decide the compensation if any payable by the OP to the complainant. Which the complainant deserves as remedies , issue No.3 answered accordingly.
In view of the aforesaid discussion we here by concur with the view taken by this commission in favour of the complainant with following directions.
ORDER
The OP is directed to pay the insured amount Rs.1,05,000/- @9% interest from the filing of the case and Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses within thirty days from the date of order failing which the entire amount should be paid by the Op @12% interest per annum from the date of filing of the case till realization.
No award as to cost.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TODAY I.E DATE 29th day of AUGUST’2023.
