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 Rabi Season 2021-22.
2. The complainant seeks for an order directing the Ops to release the   crop insurance benefit of Rs. 44,245.83 along with interest @ 9% p.a  and for award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-towards mental agony and loss of Kharif crops and further prayed for all other allied  benefit with  litigation cost.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant as emerged from the case record is that,  complainant is a farmer by occupation having agricultural land in Mouza:- Koudala bearing Plot No.3924. under  Khata No.886/237 . This agricultural land is there at mouza:- Koudala under Koudala Gram Panchyat. The complainant had grown paddy crops there over the said agriculture land measuring an areas of 2.6102 Hect  and  to insure his crops he has deposited insurance premium  under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, Ministry of agriculture & farmers Welfare as  non loanee farmer for the Rabi season 2021-22 through the S.B.I  Ladugaon for an areas of 2.61022 Hector  with a  sum assured of Rs.1,74,884.74 and paid total premium of Rs.2,623.27 vide money  receipt No.040221210010467081701 dt.15.12.2021. .It is further contended that , the crop of the complainant was damaged due to hailstorm according government declared  a crop loss of 25.30% as per the report of the Loss Assessor of the Insurance Company as such the complainant is entitle to get insurance benefit of Rs.44,245.83 from the Opposite Parties for  loss of  insured crops as per the guidelines of the Insurance Company. It is alleged that, the  complainant visited the  OP 3 /Bank several times to enquire about  his crop loss and asked for insurance amount  but the Op /Bank assured  to credit the same  within few days but  the amount was not credited to the account of the complainant. The complainant also contacted to the  Opp.Party No.2 /Agriculture Insurance Company at Bhubaneswar  and to its  Head Office but the Ops remained silent  regarding the legitimate claim of the complainant. The complainant also visited the office of OP 4/Chief District Agriculture Office to enquire about the fact but he was advised to visit another day every time as such the Op 4(four) is also negligent in giving proper service to the complainant. Due to  deficiency of service of the Ops the complainant  was deprived  to avail the insurance benefit under PMFBY  as such the complainant is entitle to get Rs.44,245.83  from the Ops  with 9% interest along with compensation for harassment & litigation cost. Hence this complaint.
4. On being notice, the OP 2 /AIC of India appeared through their learned counsel but no written version is filed. However, participate in the hearing & argument of this case.
5. The O.P 1, 3, 4 & 5 did not prefer to contest the case though notice has been properly served. No written version is filed by the Ops.
6. Though the contentions of the complaint petition & allegation made against remain unchallenged,  we have proceeded to decide this complaint on merits as to whether the Ops are deficient in service for non release of the insurance benefit to the complainant earliest causing any  financial loss & mental agony to the complainant and whether the complainant is entitled for the relief(s) claimed ? 
7. Heard .Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission of the rival parties present
8. As per Sec.38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record , as such it casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider/seller, irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.
9. No evidence on affidavit as prescribed under C.P.Act 2019 is filed by the complainant during hearing of this case.
10. Learn counsel for the complainant draw the attention of this Commission on the revised guideline PMFBY and submits that, there is negligence & deficiency of service on the part of the ops caused injuries to the complainant for which the Ops are jointly liable to  release the insurance benefit and liable to compensate to the complainant  adequately .
11. This Commission on perusal of the record found that, the complainant is one of the Saving Bank Account holder of State Bank of India, Ladugaon vide SB A/C No. 31237755805 is not disputed .It is also not disputed that, the complainant being a farmer had insured his crops grown over an areas of 2.61022 Hector situated in the village of Kaudala under Kaudola  G.P of Kalahandi District of Odisha   State during Rabi 2021-22  with the AIC /OP 1&2 for sum assured of Rs. 1,74,884.47 under PMFBY paying premium of Rs. 2623.27 in CSC as non lonee farmer. So also received of premium vides money receipt No.040221210010467081701 dt.15.12.2021 by the Agriculture Insurance Company/OP1&2 is not disputed by the insurance company/OP1&2.
12. Admittedly, PMFBY is a beneficial scheme of the government meant to protect the farmer at peril.
13. On being asked the Op 4(four) /Chief District Agriculture Officer ,Kalahandi vide his letter no. 11515 dt.15.11.23 submits his report along with the enquiry report made  on the grievance petition of the complainant Sambhu Prasad Sahu which is received from the  Block Agriculture Officer vide his letter No. 407 dt.03.11.2023 remain unchallenged is taken in to consideration .So also letter vide no. 232 dt.17.07.2023 & letter vide no. 203 dt. 28.06.2023 of the Block Agriculture Officer Koksara is taken in to record remains    unchallenged / un rebutted.
14. During hearing of this case the learned counsel for the complainant has filed a memo stating there in that, the Insurance Company has released an amount of Rs. 17,290.2/ only to the account of the complainant bearing A/C No. 31237755805 on dt. 08.08.2023 against his entitlement of Rs 44,245.83/- as the insurance benefit under PMFBY .
15. It is seen from the undisputed enquiry report drawn on the grievance petition of the complainant Sambhu Prasad Sahu received from the Block Agriculture Officer vide his letter No. 407 dt.03.11.2023 placed on the record by Op 4(four) /Chief District Agriculture Officer ,Kalahandi that, as per annexure -1 ( the crops loss assessment of Koksara Block during the year Rabi 2021-22) the affected areas of the crops grown by the complainant Sambhu Prasad Sahu is  1.02 Hector only but not the total areas of 2.6102 Hect over which he had grown crops & insured with AIC  . The report submitted to the Chief District Agriculture Officer, Kalahandi by the Block Agriculture Officer,Koksara shows that, there is no crops loss declared by the Govt. for Kaudola GP in Rabi Season 2021-2022 rather it is a personal claim by Sri Sahu/complainant against damaged of insured crops due hailstorm in Rabi Season 2021-2022 and the loss is assessed at  @ 25.30% remain un challenged . Hence, we are of the opinion that, the entitlement of complainant is rightly assessed at Rs. 17,290.15 only  & the same is already paid to the complaint by the insurance company as such  the complainant is not entitled for the insurance benefit of Rs 44,245.83/- as claimed  in his complaint petition.
16. It is found that, the complainant being a non -loanee farmer had insured his crops through CSC and already received his entitlement of insurance benefit .The grievance of the complainant is properly redress by the Ops/insurance company and it is no more remains as on date.
17. Based on the above facts & circumstances we are of the opinion that, this complaint sans merits and the complainant is not entitled for the relief(s) as claimed. Hence, it is order.

                                                      ORDER

This complaint is dismissed against the OPs on contest. However,  no order as to cost & compensation. Pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me.

 President

I   agree.

Member    

            Pronounce in open forum today on this 29^th February 2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

             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.