JUDGMENT

 Sri A.K.Patra, President

1. The captioned Consumer Complaint is filed by the complainant named above inter alia alleging negligence & deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties for non release of crop insurance benefit under PMFBY towards loss of paddy crop grown in Kharif 2019-20.
2. The complainant seeks for an order directing the Ops to release the   crop insurance benefit of Rs.2,29,135/- along with all other allied  benefit with interest  and litigation cost.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant as emerged from the case record is that, the complainant is a farmer by occupation. During Kharif 2019-20 he had obtained agriculture loan from HDFC Bank Ltd, Bhawanipatna/OP1 to grow crop over his agriculture land under Khata No 42 of village “GADALAJHARAN “of “FARANG” GP  and over the land under  Khata No 99 of village “BAGBAHAL “of “FUNDA” GP of Golamunda PS ,Kalahandi district recorded in his name . His crop was insured with HDFC Egro General Insurance Co. Ltd.,/OP 2 under PMFBY by deducting adequate premium  of Rs.45821.71/- from his account vide A/C No. 5020002086550 , Code No.8216507 and Farmer ID No.60690439. His insured paddy crops of said   Kharif 2019-20 got damaged for which he is entitled to get released of the crop insurance benefit of Rs.2,29,135/- but not yet disbursed to the complainant. His several requests in person are not responded. Hence, this complaint.
4. On being notice, the Ops have appeared and filed their respective written version denying the allegation of deficiency in service as raised by the complainant.
5. The OP 1/HDFC Bank Ltd. has filed their written version through their learned counsel Shri S.S Sahu admitting the fact that, the complainant is a loanee farmer availed agriculture loan from the OP 1/bank vide loan agreement contract No.6875103 and that, being an implementing agency of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana(PMFBY) &  as per information provided by the complainant in his application Form, the bank /OP1 has debited required insurance premium  of Rs.4582/- vide UTR ID -65494201908142268705 and  remitted the same to  the HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd/OP2 on 14^th August,2019 14^th August,2019 which is their reflected in the  account statement annexed with the complaint petition. It is a clear direction by HDFC Bank to carry out the necessary formality involving the account of the complainant on required date but insurer/O P 2 decide to act on individual capacity and hold the disbursement of the complainant which shows that, the insurance company was not acting on the direction of the complainant but was acting self made decision as a result the corporate veil cannot be lifted and the OP/Bank cannot be held liable. It is further submitted that, OP 1/Bank and OP2/Insurer are two separate business entities. HDFC Bank/OP1 being a financer has no role in the issuance of the insurance policy and the same was issued by the OP 2/Insurer. Thus, for any grievance of the complainant concerning the alleged insurance policy the insurance company is only answerable. The insurance premium received from the complainant had already been remitted to the insurer /Op2 as such claim settlement will be carried out by the insurer and accordingly insurance amount should be credited by the concern insurer/OP2 to the customer’s account. But till date no insurance amount is credited to the account of the complainant by the insurer/Op 2. The relief sought for in this complaint and the claim for the compensation etc. are absorbed vexatious and not sustainable in the eye of law therefore, the complainant is not entitle for any relief sought for and this complaint is liable to be dismissed against this OP 1/bank.
6. The OP 2/HDFC Egro General Insurance Co. Ltd submit their written version through their learned counsel Shri D.R.Bohidar with a preliminary objection that, there is no legal cause of action for filing of this complaint against the answering OP 2 /Insurance company . However, OP 2/Insurer has admitted the facts that, insurance premium of Rs.4582/- along with the details of the farmer are sent by the Bank/OP 1 and those were received by the OP 2/ Insurance Company for Kharif 2019 paddy crop. It is further admitted that, the crop was insured by the answering OP2  /Insurer vide application  ID No. 401211910618282 of complainant .It is  further submitted that, on verification of the CSC application of the complainant  Nirmala Sahu ,which has been submitted by the opposite party No 1 /Bank, it is clear that, the complainant had paid the premium amount of Rs.4582/- for the crops of village “BORGUDA”  and said village has not declared as crop loss during  PMFBY insurance year 2019 .It is further contended that ,as per the AY-TY data provided by the government there was no loss in paddy crop for the Kharif 2019 in the district Kalahandi and that , as per the actual yield (AY)-Threreshold yield (TY) data received from the government no claim stands payable as AY is greater than TY for paddy crop of  village Borguda(4) ,Dist-Kalahandi . It is further submitted that, in the current matter since the AY is 34.64 which is greater than TY i.e. 24.4354094, the crop occurred no loss. It is further submitted that, OP2/Insurance company is no way responsible for wrong entry in the CSC Application of the complainant .The insurance company /op2 is only stickup to the CSC application of the complainant .The complainant has never paid any premium for the paddy crops of village “GADALAJHARAN” of “FARANG” GP and of village “BAGBAHAL “of “FUNDA” GP of Kalahandi district.  The Claim of the complainant deserved to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. It is further submitted that the complainant has filed a complainant before the Hon’ble Chairperson Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) Kalahandi & Bolangir vide   PLA Case No.2/22 filed on the same cause of action against the Ops as such this complainant is not maintainable in the eye of law.
7. Heard. Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission of both the parties present.
8. The certified copy of order No.22 dt.15.11.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Chairperson Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) Kalahandi & Bolangir placed on record proved that,  PLA Case No.2/22 filed by the complainant  on the same cause of action against the Ops has already been disposed off   for non prosecution as such we are of the opinion that , there is nothing impediment to decide the disputes involved in this complaint  before this Commission .
9. After perusal of the complaint petition, written version and all the documents relied on by both the parties and notes of arguments placed on the record, the points for consideration before this Commission is whether the complainant is entitled for the alleged crops insurance benefit under (P M F B Y) for the loss of Kharif crops 2019-20 and whether the Ops are deficient in service for non release of the insurance benefit to the complainant?
10. Here in this case, it is proved on admission that, the complainant is a loanee farmer obtained agriculture loan vide loan Agreement No.6875103 from the OP1/Bank. The bank /OP1 has deducted the adequate premium of Rs.4582/- from the account of the complainant  vide A/C No 50200020860550 and remitted the same to the insurer /Op2 for the insurance of paddy crop of the complainant grown in Kharif 2019 and there is no dispute that, said insurance premium is duly received by the Insurer/OP2 along with farmers detail sent by the OP1/Bank vide application  ID No. 401211910618282 of complainant for settlement of the crop insurance claim in case of loss sustained by the insured farmers / here the complainant.
11. It is submitted by the insurance company/OP 2 on affidavit of one Bhubaneshwari Das ,Deputy Manager –Legal Claims, that ,   crop of village “Borguda” which  is coming under “Borguda GP” of Golamunda PS of Kalahandi district area was insured by the complainant under PMFBY during Kharif 2019-20 and that , the state government has  not declared crop loss in that village “Borguda” rather actual yield was 34.64 which was higher  that of the threshold yield i.e. 24.43451 in Kharif 2019 and thus  as per the scheme of PMFBY the insurer/OP2 is not liable to pay any claim amount.
12. During hearing of the case, the complainant filed an application/addendum that, he had insured his crop grown over land under Khata No.42 of village “Godlajharan” of “Farang GP” and another land under Khata No.99 of village “Bagbahal” of “Funda GP”. The premium of Rs.4582.71 for crop insurance was deducted from his account by the HDFC Bank Bhawanipatna/OP1 and remitted to the insurer HDFC Egro General Insurance Co. Ltd/OP2 vide ID No.60690439 . The Insurance benefit for loss of Kharif crops 2019 has not been released to his account. Copy of the said application/addendum was duly served to the opponent and on being heard of the objection raised from the Ops, it has been taken into the record for consideration.
13. To substantiate his case the  complainant Nirmal Sahu has placed the  copy of ROR vide Khata No.42 of village “Gadlajharan” for an area of AC 4.410 i.e. 1.7038 hector and another copy of ROR vide Khata No.99 of village “Bagbahal” for an areas  of AC 3.130 ,both stand recorded in his name. Land under both the ROR is situated under Golamunda Ps of Kalahandi district.
14. The OP 2 Insurer has filed an objection containing there in that, on verification of CSC application of the complainant Nirmal Sahu, which has been submitted by the OP1/Bank, it is clear that, complainant has paid the premium amount of Rs.4582/- for the crop of village “Borguda” and said village is coming under “Borguda GP” of Golamunda PS of Kalahandi district. However, the alleged CSC application of the complainant is not placed in record for perusal. Rather, the copy of approved status report of the application vide No 040121191061828259801 shows successful payment of premium of the complainant namely Nirmala Sahu of village: Borguda, Dist-Kalahandi, State –Odisha. But  nothing   land particulars is mentioned there in the said document to hold that, complainant has paid the premium amount of Rs.4582/- only for the crop  grown  in  village “Borguda” on Kharif 2019-20.
15. On being asked by the OP 2 /Insurer, this Commission vide Order dt.26.10.2022  a direction to the  Chief District Agriculture Officer, Kalahandi  to provide  the detail information regarding paddy crop damage report of Kharif  2019-20 of the said village “Godlajharan” under “Farang” GP & of village “Bagbahal” under “Funda” GP of district Kalahandi upon which, the Chief District Agriculture Officer, Bhawanipatna vide his letter No.9605 /Agri dt.29.10.2022 submits the claim payment percentage report as follows:- the paddy crop AY was 2138 & TY was 3123 as such claim pay out during Kharif 2019-20 was fixed at 31.54% in  “Farang GP”. So also the AY was 976 & TY was 3067 as such claim payout in “Funda GP” during Kharif 2019 was fixed at 68.17% which remain unchallenged. As such it is proved in favour of the complainant that, he suffered loss of paddy crops grown during Kharif 2019-20. 
16. Admittedly, PMFBY is a beneficial scheme of the government meant to protect the farmer at peril.
17. Para 17 of revised PMFBY casts a duty on the Bank that:- the Bank are required to upload the details of insured farmers’ data mandatorily on the National Crop Insurance Portal . The concern branches of the Bank and Nodal Banks/DCCB in case of PACS will upload the details of the individual insured famer (Both Loanee & Non-Loanee) like farmers’ name, Fathers name ,Account Number, Aadhar Number ,Village ,Categories-Small & Marginal /SC,ST /Women insured area , details of insured land , insured crop(s) etc. as prescribed in online application on National Crop Insurance Portal and CBS integration mandate and submit the same within stipulated cut-off-date as per the seasonally discipline. The Banks /PACS must also ensure the premium amount is remitted to the concerned insurance company electronically within the stipulated time.
18. Here in this case, the required insurance premium under PMFBY for  Kharif 2019-20 from the complainant through the OP1/Bank along with the details of insured farmers’ data is accepted  by the insurer/OP2  within the stipulated time  is not disputed.
19. It is also contended there in the said guideline that : “Insurance Company should also reconcile the details of individual insured farmers uploaded on the portal  with the premium/consolidated  declaration receipt from each branch/nodal branch within the stipulated date and any deficiency/mismatch may be reported to the concerned bank branch/nodal bank. The bank branch/nodal bank should further send /upload the requisite information in respect of such farmers for whom clarification has been sought immediately within seven days.”
20. Nothing cogent evidence whatsoever is placed in the record to hold that, the insurer/OP 2 has ever notified any deficiency/mismatch or have reported to the concerned bank branch/nodal bank/the OP1 for clarification under PMFBY towards crops insurance of the complainant during Kharif 2019-20.
21. There is also a duty cast in Para 17.12 of the revised guideline of PMFBY that:-“insurance company should verify and satisfy themselves about the coverage of farmers/crop and give acceptance to the application submitted by bank electronically through National Crop Insurance Portal.”  Here in this case the proposal/application of the complainant for crops insurance is never rejected rather, it is accepted by the OP2/Insurer.
22.  Para 17.13 of the said guideline contended that:-“all insurance companies will compulsorily verify and take necessary action including approval/rejection of proposal or policy of any farmer through crop insurance portal within stipulated date.” Here in this case the status of the application of the complainant for insurance of crops Kharif 2019 placed on record by the OP2/insurance company clearly proved that, the proposal / policy of the complainant/ farmer has been approved by insurer/OP 2 .
23. Para 27.1.1 of the revised PMFBY guideline- Bank and other financial institutions etc. shall be paid service charge @ 4% of the farmer share of premium by insurance company as generated from the portal and within the 15 days of finalization of business statistics
24. The PMFBY  makes it compulsory and duty bound on the part of  bank to insure the crop of the loanee farmer by deducting adequate premium from the account of the loanee farmer and to remit the same along with the information detail of the  farmer/complainant , crop insured, collect CSC Form in prescribed manner, as such remittance of premium & required information  of the insured farmer to the insurance company is the business between the bank/Op1  and insurer/OP2 .The loanee farmer /here the complainant is no way responsible for any omission / commission  made by the Bank /OP1 if any , while furnishing information in the concern portal at the time of remittance of insurance premium for further reference  by the insurer/OP2 when the crop of the insured farmed sustained loss. As such, we are of the opinion that , for any negligence/omission or commission on the part of the OP1/Bank if any, as alleged by the OP/2  , the poor insured farmer /complainant should not be put into loss resulting frustration of very purpose of PMFBY of the government.
25. It is also found that, the PMFBY does not prescribe any separate insurance premium for individual farmer towards insurance of crops   grown in separate village. As such, the contention of the insurer/Op2 that,” premium has been received from the complainant for the crop grown in village Borguda of Borguda GP but not for the  crop grown in Gadlajharan village or Bagbahal village & if it was  so, then the insurance premium would have charged accordingly”, are  not acceptable.
26.  Here, in this case, the OP1/Bank has failed to file the copy of proposal Form for alleged crops insurance of the complainant, so also, the OP2/Insurance Company has failed to file the CSC application of complainant as alleged to be submitted by the bank/op1 for insurance of Kharif 2019 crops of the complainant grown over the land in village Borguda. The Order dt.23.03.2023 passed in this case for production of afore said relevant documents i.e proposal Form & CSC application of complainant is ignored by the both OPS No.1 & 2 which clearly proved their noncooperation for settlement of the claim of the insured farmer/complainant attract for awarding punitive damage against the Ops.
27. There is nothing pleaded or proved that, the complainant/insured farmer has misrepresented any fact or have played fraud to obtained crop insurance under PMFBY for his paddy crop grown during Kharif 2019 and there is nothing fault  proved against the complainant. The amount of insurance benefit as assessed by the complainant in his complainant petition is not disputed, as such we are of the opinion that, the complainant is entitled for crop insurance benefit as claimed   in this complaint only but not yet released by the insurer /Op 2 is certainly an act of unfair trade practice & deficient in providing service on the part Op 2 towards the complainant. So also we found noncooperation on the part of the OP1/Bank for settlement of the insurance claim of the complainant & they have derailed from their duty under PMFBY caused financial loss & mental agony may not be discarded  for which there is sufficient cause to bring this complainant and it is found in time well before this Commission maintainable under C.P  Act 2019
28. Based on the above facts & circumstances and as per revised guideline we are of the opinion that, enjoying the premium received from the farmer/complainant and sitting over the claim of complainant for an uncertain period of time at the peril is nothing but an act of unfair trade practice & defiant service proved against the op 2. As such Op 2 is liable to compensate the complainant by way of releasing the insurance benefit to the complainant as claimed with interest @9% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 04.03.2022 till its realization. Further we are of the opinion that. there is non-cooperation on the part of the OP1/Bank for settlement of the insurance claim of the complainant & they have derailed from their duty under PMFBY certainly caused mental agony to the complainant cannot be assessed, however monetary compensation of not less than Rs 25,000/- by way of punitive damage payable to the complainant may compensate him  to some extent. Hence it is ordered.

O R D E R

   This consumer complaint is allowed in part on contest against Opp.Parties with the following directions: -

(i) The HDFC  Aergo General Insurance Company of India Ltd/ Opposite Party No. 2  is here by directed to release the  crops insurance benefit of Rs.2,29,135/  under Pradhan Mantri Fasala Bima Yojana (PMFBY) to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filling of this complaint i.e. from dt.04.03.2022 till its realization.

(ii) The OP 1/HDFC  Bank Ltd. Bhawanipatna is hereby  is directed to pay Rs 25,000/- by way of punitive damage to the complainant .

(ii) It is further directed to comply  the aforesaid order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order falling which the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay Rs.500/-(five) each per day as compensation to the complainant till compliance of this order . No order as to cost of the  litigation .

Dictated & corrected by me.

                Sd/-

I agree.

                                           Sd/-

                                         Member.                             

Pronounced in open Commission today on this 23^rd August 2023 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.