Counsel for:

The Complainant:-Self..

The Opposite Party No-1& 2:-Not appeared.

The Opposite Party No- 3:- self .

ORDER

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. Heard. Peruse the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the respective contention and submission advanced by the parties.
2.  The present Consumer Complaint is filed against the Ops alleging deficiency of service for non- release of crops insurance benefit for the damages of Kharif paddy crops 2020.
3. The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs :- (a) to hold that, the ops are deficient in providing service to the complainant, (b) to direct the ops to settled the insurance claim as per the guide line of the Agriculture Department on the basis of percentage of crop loss and pay the amount to the complainant,(c) A compensation of Rs.50,000/ towards mental agony and financial loss to the complainant,(d) direction to the ops for payment of cost of this  litigation i.e  Rs.10,000/-(e) any other relief(s) the learned Commission may deem fit & proper may be granted to the complainant.  
4. Notice to the O.P No.1 & 3 is served properly through the office peon in hand. Notice to the O.P No 2 is served through Registered Post on  08.06.2022 properly as it  reveals form the tracking consignment report vide RO074211885IN available on record . However, O.P No 1 & 2 did not chose to contest this complaint.
5. The chief District Agriculture Office O.P No.3 appeared and filed their reply vide No.6223 Dt.06.07.2022 along with the report of Actual Yield (AY) , Threshold Yield (TY) and claim payout (%age) of GP Santapur (Insurance unit) of Narla Block during the Kharif 2020 . It is stated that, as per the guideline of Pradhan  Mantre Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) at Sl .No.23.4 the, implementing insurance company settle the claim/payment to the farmer. PMFBY guideline at  SL No.23.4 state that “the loss report and actual Yield data shall be approve/reverted (in case of any discrepancy/concerned the authority/correctness or report data) by the insurance company based on which the eligible claim shall be calculated through the portal accordingly the payment of claims shall be instituted by the concern insurance company and remitted directly in to beneficiary account as per pre defined timeline” with this contention the O.P No.3 urged  that, the insurance company AIC India Ltd.(O.P No.2 ) should settle the claim pay out of the complainant subject to remittance of premium with the schedule date under PMFBY-2020 .
6. The facts as stated in the complaint and emerged from the document available on the record are that:- the complainant is a nominal cultivator having his agriculture land at village Santapur ,Ps-Narla-Dist0-Kalahandi .He has insured his paddy corps grown over land under Khata No.57/17 in Kharif 2020 by paying proper premium of Rs.3000/- on 29.07.2020 to the O.P No.2 through OP.No.1  under PMFBY which was deducted from his account vide No.077751000037 of ICICI Bank, Ltd Bhawanipatna (O.P NO.1). Due to scarcity of rain fall there was heavy damage to  Paddy cultivation of Kharif 2020 for which the co- villager have availed  crop insurance benefit under PMFBY but complainant has  not received any compensation towards his crop loss. It is alleged that, due to negligence & deficient in service on the part of O.Ps the complainant has not yet received the crops insurance benefit under PMFBY which caused him financial loss & mental agony hence this complaint.
7. To substantiate his claim the complainant has filed copy of the details of the account statement of KCC Kisan Credit Card vide A/C No. 077751000037 of ICICI Bank ,Bhawanipatna (O.P No.1) which clearly show that, an amount of Rs.3,000/- has been deducted by the O.P No.1/ICICI,Bank Bhawanipatna from the account of the complainant towards insurance premium for insurance of paddy crop grown in Kharif 2020.
8. Here, the doctrine of non-traverse will rightly applicable as non of the allegation made by the complainant are ever disputed or traversed by the O.Ps NO.1 & 2 in any manner .The opposite parties have neither disputed nor produce any evidence contrary to the averment of the complainant 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 contend 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).
9. During course of hearing the complainant draw our attention on the guide line 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 that, Bank PO .No. 1 is duty bound to take necessary steps to release the insurance benefit to the insured /complainant but no such action has been taken by the OP No. 1 is proved.
10. It further reveals from the information and  submission of the  O.P No.3 /Chief District Agriculture Office,Kalahandi that,there was short fall of 30.01% in Yielding of Paddy corps during 2020 in Santapur G.P under Narla ,Block,Dist-Kalahandi where the complainant had grown paddy corps in his village as such the complainant is entitle for insurance benefit of 30.01% of his insured crop but not yet release to the complainant which clearly proved the negligence & deficiency  in service on the part of O.Ps no.1&2  toward of the complainant certainly cause financial loss and mental agony to the complainant need to be compensate by the O.Ps No.1&2.
11. In the light of above said discussion and settled principle of law we are of the considered view that, there is deficiency in service on the part of O.PS No.1 & 2 towards the complainant which caused him financial loss & mental agony as such he is entitled to be compensated by the O.Ps by way of punitive damages. However, the claim of the complainant is of higher side as such allowed in part. Hence it is order.

ORDER

This consumer complaint is allowed in part Ex-party  against the OPNo.1&2  and dismissed against the O.P.No 3 with the following terms:-

(i).The O.P No 1(one) is directed to release the crops insurance benefit to the complainant under PMFBY for the loss of 30.01% of the paddy crops grown in Kharif 2020 along with interest @ 9% p.a there on within four week of receiving of the copy of this order.

(ii). The Op No 2 is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages to the complainant for their negligence & deficient service within four weeks from the date of received of this order failing which he is liable to pay interest @ 12% over the awarded amount till its realization.

(iii) Both the OP.NO.1& 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-each towards litigation cost to the complainant.

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

Pronounced in open Commission today on this   16^th February 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

 Dictated and corrected by me.