DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KALAHANDI

AT BHAWANIPATNA.

C.C. 01  OF 2019

Date of filling :-01.01.2019 .Date of order 15^th  Dec,2022

PRESENT:

Shri Aswini Kumar Patra,    ……     President.

Shri Sudhakara Senapothy  ………   Member

 Jagananda Bag

 S/O-Late Sibaram Bag

 At-Haldigad, Po-Karlapada Dist-Kalahandi,766001       …….…Complainant                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ……………….Complainant

                    Vrs.

1. Branch Manager,SBI,Karlapada

At/Po-Karlapada, Dist,Kalahandi,Odisha

2. Regional Manager

State Bank Of India

At/po-Naktiguda,Dist-Kalahandi,Odisha

3. Future General

2^nd Floor,Kalinga Complex

Plot No. C-B, Unit-1 , Rtajpath,Bhubaneswa

751009                                                        ……………….Opps Parties

For the Complainant:  Self .

For the O.P 1& 2 :   Sri  S.K. Agrawal , Advocate, Bhawanipatna

For the O.P 2:  Sri  D. R. Bahidar , Advocate, Bhawanipatna.

                                         JUDGMENT

 Sri A.K.Patra,President

1. Heard. Perused the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the submission of the complainant and the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties.

1. The captioned Consumer Complaint is filed on 01.01.2019 by the complainant Jagadanand Bag alleging negligence & deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and prayed  for an order directing the Ops (i) to release the crops insurance benefit of Rs. 48,000/-along with all allied benefits under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) with interest and (ii) to pay compensation for causing loss of credibility ,harassment & mental agony etc along with litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-and (iii) further prayed for other relief(s) as the Hon’ble Forum/Commission deem fit and proper.
2.   The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that, the complainant is an account holder bearing A/c No.31394094705 of State Bank of India , Karlapada, Dist-Kalahandi. During Kharif 2016-17 an amount of Rs. 1256/- has been deducted from his said account towards the insurance premium under PMFBY for insurance of his paddy crops grown in Kharif 2016-17 over the agricultural land of village Haldigarh under Karalapada  Grampanchyat (GP) of District-Kalahandi (Odisha) . The paddy crops grown in Kharif 2016-2017 in the Karlapada GP got damage due to draught and govt. of Odisha  has declared 76% damage for release of crops insurance benefit to the farmer of the Karlapada GP of Kalahandi district ,accordingly the co-villager have received their entitlement under (PMFBY) but the complainant has not yet received the crops insurance benefit for which he has approached the B.M. S.B.I Karlapada (OP.No.1) who assured release of crops insurance benefit soon after  receiving   from the insurance company (OP.NO.3) but no avail for which the complainant approached the consumer counseling center of DCDRF, Kalahandi where notice was issued to the ops for settlement of the claim of the complainant but no avail for which the complainant has approached to the R.M, SBI, at Bhawanipatna (OP.No.2) who simply assured and told that matter has been put forth before the insurance company with required document  asked by the insurer (OP.NO.3) so to release the alleged crops insurance benefit but went  hopeless ,crops insurance benefit for the loss of paddy crops of 2016-17 is not yet  release to the complainant farmer ,hence this complainant .
3. On being notice the OP No.1 & 2 appeared through their learned counsel Sri, S.K. Agrawal and filed their written version admitting the facts that, the complainant is a non-loanee farmer and that, the complainant has a saving Bank Account with the SBI, Karlapada Branch bearing No.31394094705 and during Khariff 2016-17 an amount of Rs.1256/- has been deducted from the said account of the complainant towards insurance premium towards insurance paddy crop grown during the Kharif year 2016-17. The premium of the complainant as well as premium collected from other non-loanee farmers has been sent to the Future General Insurance Company Ltd.(O.P 3) for insurance of Paddy crop grow in Kharif 2016-17 .It is further submitted that, when O.P No.3 asked for clarification/information about the none-loanee farmers the SBI, Karlapada Branch has immediately responded the same and sent e-mail dt.16.10.2017 confirming that, all the information of Non-loanee farmers submitted earlier by the SBI, Karlapada Branch for crop insurance are correct and requested the O.P No.3/Insurance company to settle the claim of the complainant as soon as possible. It is further admitted that, even though Karlapada Gram Panchayat was declared as the drought effected area, the complainant did not receive the compensation amount as decided by the Insurance company and when the complainant brought this fact to the notice of the Bank, then immediately Branch has mail a letter to the insurance company on dt.07.11.2017 intimating the name of the farmers who have not received the compensation amount for the  loss of crop in Kharif 2016-17. As a gesture of good way and in order to help the poor farmer the O.P No.1 & 2 brought this fact to the notice of the insurance company but  the O.P 3 /insurance company not yet taken decision on that score . The O.P No 1 & 2 are not the authority to decide of amount of compensation rather it is the insurance company/O.P No.3 to decide the same with the help of the Govt. agency and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part  O.P No.1 & 2 as they have taken all steps from their side and requested to the O.P No.3 to settle the claim of the complainant as there is no cause of action arose against this O.P No.1 & 2.Again  it is submitted that the complaint barred by limitation liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. To substantiate their claim the OP No.1 & 2 have filed attested true   copy of following documents.:-i) List of non-loanee farmers insured their crop during the  Kharif 2016-17 (where the name of the complainant found placed). ii) Copy of Mail sent to Future General Insurance company Ltd./O.P No.3 .iii) List of farmers sent to Insurance Company/O.P No.3 on dt.01.11.2017.
5.  The OP No.3 appeared through  Learned Advocate Sri D.R Bohidar and filed their written version with a preliminary objection that, alleged complaint is barred by estoppels, waiver, acquiescence, limitation ,non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party, so also complaint does not come under the preview of consumer protection Act liable to be rejected with cost. It is further contended that, O.P No.3 has not received any amount towards premium under PMFBY during Khariff 2016-17 form the O.P No.1 & 2 of the beneficiaries including the complainant, so this insurance company is no way liable for any deficiency in service. It is further averred that,O.P No.1/SBI, Karlapada Branch has never sent any premium to this answering O.P no.3  at any point of time nor they have filed any supporting document in this connection before this Forum, so it is clear that, the O.P No.1 & 2 taken the false plea just to get rid of from their liability .It is further submitted that the O.P No.3 has not committed any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice under C.P Act 1986 and that, there is no cause of action arose for this case as such complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost against the O.P No.3.
6. After perusal of the complaint petition, written version and all the documents relied on by both the parties the points of consideration before this Commission is whether the complainant is entitled for alleged crops insurance benefit under (PMFBY) for the loss of crops grown Kharif 2016-17 and whether the ops have deficient in service to settled the claim of the complainant?
7. During course of hearing the complainant draw our attention guideline of PMFBY that, “the claim amount along with particulars will be released to the individual Nodal Banks. The Banks at the grass-root level, in turn, shall credit the accounts of the individual farmers and display the particulars of beneficiaries on their board “and for this services the Bank has retain Rs.1/ per annum per member. As such we are of our consider opinion, Bank PO .No. 1 is duty bound to take necessary steps to release the insurance benefit to the insured /complainant.
8. Here in this case, it is proved on admission by the O. p No.1 & 2 that, the complainant is an account holder of the O.P No.1/SBI, Karlapada vide SB A/C bearing No.31394094705 and during the Khariff year 2016-17 an amount of Rs.1256/- has been deducted from the account of the complainant towards premium for paddy crop insurance during Khariff 2016-17 . Further the copy of farmers details enrolled under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) during Kharif Year 2016-17 (Four Sheet), Copy of  mail dt.16.10.2017 sent to the Future General Insurance Company Ltd./O.P No3.(Two sheet), Mail dated 07.11.2017 sent of O.P No.3 (one sheet) placed in  the record by the answering O.P No. 1 & 2, so also copy of mail dt. 3^rd  Jan 2018 to O.P No.3, Copy of mail dt.25^th Apr 2018 to the O.P No.3 and reply thereon by the O.P No.3 receipt on dt. 26 April 2018 placed on record by the complainant remain un-rebutted clearly prove that, adequate premium of Rs.1256/- has been deducted from the account of the complainant towards Insurance premium for insurance of Paddy crop grown in the agriculture filed of the complainant situated under the Karlapada G.P of Kalahandi district and the same was remitted to the Future General Company/O,P No.3 . It is also proved from copy of the mail dt.26 April 2018 receipt from O.P 3 that, the O.P 3 have forwarded detail claim of the complainant to their concern team and they shall get in touch with the complainant as an earliest and to assist  the complainant further but no iota of evidence is placed on record that, the O.P No.3 has ever assist or any team of O.P No.3 have ever contact with the complainant to settle the crop insurance claim of the poor farmer /Complainant which clearly proof the negligence and deficient service on the part of O.P No.3 . Rather we found no negligence or deficient service on the part of O.P No. 1(one) & 2 (two) in this complaint.
9.  In the present case the Insurance company/O.P No.3 has became too technical while settling the crop insurance claim under PMFBY which is meant for the poor farmers and acted arbitrarily. The complainant has been asked to prove remittance the insurance premium to the O.P No.3 though the O.P No l & 2 have clearly admitted the deduction of the Insurance premium form the SB Account of the complainant and also clearly proved the remittance of the same to the O.P No.3 along with premium of other non-loanee farmers. It is also proved that, the O.P No.1 has clarify the queries asked by the O.P No.3 time to time through e-mail for early settlement of the claim of the crop insurance benefit under PMFBY payable to the complainant. It is reported in Gurumel Singh Vrs. Natural Insurance Company Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.4021 of 2022 disposed of on 20.05.2022.the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: - once there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium the insurance company should not be too technical while settling the claims. With due regard to the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India when the genuine  claim of the complainant is not yet settle , the complainant is entitle to heavy compensation with punitive damages, so that in future they/insurance company  would not dare to repudiate as such on the ground that, which is beyond the control of the insured. Reliance may also be placed on the judgment recently passed on dt. 08.07.2022 by the Honorable State Commission, Odisha, Cuttack in C.C No. 19 of 2018, Ranjan Mahapatra Vs. Star Health & Allied Insurance Co.Ltd reported in 2020(II) OLR (CSR) Page 326.
10. As the aforesaid conduct of the OP.NO. 3 discussed above clearly proved their negligence & deficient service towards the complainant which frustrated the very purpose of PMFBY meant for the poor farmers of the nation is a great concern certainly caused financial lose & mental agony to the complainant need to be compensated with heavy punitive damages not less than 5(five) lakh in view of the above said decision of the apex court.
11. During the course of hearing the complainant has filed the self attested true copy of letter vide No.9S(33) CI-4/2022 27871 Dt.25.08.2022 issued form Nodal Officer(PMFBY), Office of the Directorate of Agriculture & Food production of Odisha which clearly shows that, during Kharif 2016 the claim percentage of Karlapada G.P Bhawanipatna Block was 73%, as such we may conclude that, the complainant is entitle for compensation @73% of his insured value of the crop grown in Kharif 2016-17 .
12. The claim amount of  insurance benefit of Rs. 48,000/- under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) is disputed or traversed by the O.Ps in any manner in this case .Hence ,the doctrine of non –traverse will rightly applicable. The opposite party have neither  disputed nor produce any evidence contrary to the averment of the complainant assessing the alleged crops insurance benefit which in terms is a clear admission of facts of the complaint and the same need not proved as per Sec 58 of Indian evidence Act. Law is well settled that  every allegation of facts in the complaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication , or stated to be admitted in the pleading of the O.P shall be taken to be admitted accept as against a person disability . Where the O.p has not filed a pleading it shall be law full for the court to pronounced judgment on the basic of the fact contained in the plaint except as against the person under a disability (Reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in M. Venkataramana Hebbar Vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Others, Lohia Properties (P) Ltd Vs. Atmaram Kumar). Hence, we may conclude that, the complainant is entitled for release of crops  insurance benefit of Rs. 48,000/- with interest under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) from the OP.No.3(three).
13.  In the facts and circumstances of this case, we concluded that, the complainant is entitle for release of crops insurance benefit of Rs. 48,000/- under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) from the OP.No.3(three) with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. from 01.01.2019 till its realization and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost to the compliant. Not only this but also the OP. No. 3(three) is liable to pay punitive damages of Rs.5,00,000/-(five-lakh)- to be deposited in the  State Consumer Welfare Fund.  
14. From the forgoing discussion there is continuous cause of action to file this case as admittedly insurance claim of complainant is not yet release  by the Ops to the  complaint as such complaint is in time well within the jurisdiction of this Commission  maintainable under C.P. Act.
15. In view of the above discussion, finding and circumstances of the case we found deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Op.No.3 (three). Hence, allowed the complaint on contest against the Op. No. 3(three) and dismissed against the Op.No.1 (one) & 2(two) with the following is orders.

O R D E R

1. The Opposite Party No. 3 (three) is directed to pay the insurance benefit of Rs.48, 000/-(forty –eight thousand) with interest @ 9% p. a from the date of filling of this complaint i.e. from dt. 01.01.2019 till its realization and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost to the compliant.
2. Further, the Op. No. 3(three) is directed to pay punitive damages of           Rs. 5,00,000/ (five Lakh ) to be deposited in the  State Consumer Welfare Fund. 
3. it is further directed that, the aforesaid awarded amount is to be paid  by the Op.No.3(three) within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order falling which the amount shall attract interest @ 18 % p. a till the date of actual disbursement to the complainant .

The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

  Dictated & corrected by me.

       President.                                                                       

I agree.

                       Member.                             President               

Pronounced in open forum today on this 15th  day of  December ,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission .The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order receipt from this Commission. Order accordingly.

                      Member                                     President                                                                                                              President