For the Complainant:  Self .

       For the O.P 1:  Sri  D. R. Bahidar , Advocate, Bhawanipatna.

       For the O.P 2 :   Self 

JUDGMENT

 Sri A.K.Patra, President1

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 Pradhan Mantri Fasala Bima Yojana (PMFBY) on account of loss of paddy crop grown in Kharif 2018.
2. The complainant seeks for an order directing the Ops to release the crops insurance benefit of Rs. 31763.55, along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards 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 had cultivated paddy crop during the year Kharif 2018 and insured his crop for  sum assured Rs.31763.55 and accordingly paid insurance premium of Rs.635.27 as per & under  PMBFY. The Government of Odisha has declared draught during Kharif year 2018 in the locality of the complainant whereas no claim is settled by the insurance company i.e. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. /OP1 . Hence, this complaint.
4. To substantiate his claim the complainant has filed the copy of CSC application(non loanee), self declaration in prescribed form meant for non loanee under PMFBY, front page of SB A/c of the complainant maintained with SBI Koksara , copy of application to the convener  Block level monitoring committee PMBFY, Koksara.
5. On being notice, the Ops appeared and filed their respective written version is taken into record for consideration.
6. The Chief District Agriculture Officer, Kalahandi/OP 2 vide his letter No.6211 dt.21.10.2010 submitted that , the complainant Shri Purohit Naik, S/O Nilambar Naik, At: Ichhapur, Po: Koksara, Dist.Kalahandi had registered crop insurance under PMBFY ,Kharif 2018 in the common service centre(CSC) as non loanee farmer. The premium of the crop insurance deposited in favour of Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. through CSC. According to the CSC application, it is revealed that the cultivated land was wrongly entered village Tarapur ( which is residential village of the complainant) in place of village Sarasmal under Dahagaon G.P by the CSC. The insurance company verified the insurance and wrongly approved the crop area . After receiving the written complaint from Shri Purohit Naik the status was verified by the agriculture field staff and found that the crop has been taken in Sarasmal village under Dahagaon G.P. The verification report has already been submitted to the Director of Agriculture & Food Production, Bhubaneswar by the District Agriculture Officer, Dharamgarh (copy enclosed). There is no direct role of the Chief District Agriculture Officer during registration of loanee and non loanee farmers under PMFBY . The actual role of Chief District Agriculture Officer is to monitor & supervise the Crop Cutting Experiment of notified crops and submit the yield data to the Directorate. Any grievances received from the farmers are also addressed with the help of field functionaries.
7. To substantiate their contention the OP 2 has filed the copy of the following documents:- (a) letter No.1301 dt.25.11.2019 of District Agriculture Officer, Dharamgarh submitted to the Director of Agriculture and Food Production Odisha, Bhubaneswar relating to the grievance of the complainant  Purohit Naik, (b) letter No.105 dt.26.07.2019 of Asst.Agriculture Officer-cum-Convener, BLMC,PMFBY, Koksara submitted to the Deputy Director of Agriculture-cum-Convener, DLMC,PMFBY, Kalahandi  range ,Bhawanipatna on the grievance of the complainant Purohit Naik,(c) Field Verification Report dt.26.07.2019 submitted by LVAW, Dahagaon GP, Koksara Block, Dist.Kalahandi conducted to address the grievance of the complainant Purohit Naik, (d) copy of ROR vide Khata No.293 of Mouza Sarasmal, Thana Koksara(30) Tahasil Koksara (74)Dist. Kalahandi recorded in the name of Sumanta Naik and Purohit Naik both are son of Nilambar Naik, Kumbha Naik W/O Nilambar Naik measuring an are of Ac.2.850 of agricultural land.
8. The OP 1 /M/s Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. submits their written version denying the complaint allegation on all its material particulars. However, admitted the facts that the complaint paid premium of Rs.635.27 to insure and cover his paddy crop at measuring an area of 0.47 hector land in village Tarapur, Dist.Kalahandi for a sum insured of Rs.31,763.66 through SBI, vide Bank Account No.31087389710 for which his application ID was created bearing application No.040121180629408601 for Kharif 2018 season. As per the data share by the government, there was shortfall of 0% in the said village Tarapur of GP Tarapur with regard to the paddy crop. The Actual Yield i.e. 4063 was higher than the Threshold Yield i.e. 2304 and thus as per the term and condition of the service the answering insurance company is not liable to pay any claim amount to the complainant as per the term and condition of PMFBY guidelines. The detail of the revised guideline of PMFBY is narrated in their written version which we have thoroughly perused to decide dispute in this case.
9. After perusal of the complaint petition, written version and all the documents relied on by both the parties placed in the record, the points of 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 crops grown Kharif 2018 and whether the Ops have deficient in service to settled the claim of the complainant?
10. The  declaration of the insured farmer,/complainant in a prescribed form under PMFBY meant for non loanee farmer clearly reveals that, the complainant has insured his paddy crop of Kharif 2018 grown over his agricultural land of village Sarasmal under Khata No.293  which comes under Dahagaon GP of Koksara block Dist. Kalahandi though the complainant is residing at village Ichhapur under Tarapur GP which is also proved from the yield verification report jointly conducted by the Ladies Village Agriculture Worker(LVAW) Dahagaon GP, Koksara Block, Dist. Kalahandi & AAO submitted to the higher authority in compliance to the grievance of the complainant, so also the Asst. Agriculture Officer,-cum Convener, BMLC,PMFBY, Koksara block vide his letter No.105 dt.26.7.2019 submitted his field enquiry report stating therein that, the complainant is a farmer of Sarasmal village of Dahagaon GP of Koksara block. It is found that for consideration of the case of complainant, to avail crop insurance benefit under PMFBY for the loss of paddy crop during Kharif 2018, it may not be disputed that the complainant   had cultivated his land during the year Kharif 2018  in the village of
    Sarasmal under Dahagaon of Koksara block of Kalahandi.
11.  On being asked the Chief Agriculture Officer, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna vide his letter No.9806/Agril. dt.5.11.2022 submits the detail of the paddy crop loss of GP Dahagaon of Koksara block Dist.Kalahandi during the PMFBY insurance year 2018 i.e. Threshold Yield 2508 and actual yield 523 which resulted loss of 79.4 % is not disputed rather OP 2/Insurance company give much importance on the CSC application of the complainant Purohit Naik placed in the record which contended the following information /data :- Dist.Kalahandi, Village: Tarapur, Crop Paddy Dhan, Survey No.293,sum insured 31763.55, area insured (Hect./Plants)0.4654,Govt. share(RS.1396/-,farmer share Rs.635.27 i.e. total are insured 0.465 hect., total premium paid: Rs.635.,27, total sum insured Rs.31,763.55, Credited by CSC,SBI, Koksara, Insurance Company:Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. which also contains undisputed farmer details i.e. Purohit Naik and bank details i.e. A/C No.31087389710 SBI, Koksara.
12. Evidently, there is discrepancy exist in the information/data contended in the declaration on the proposal form submitted by the complainant/insured for crop insurance of paddy crop grown in Khariff 2018 to the bank authority i.e. CSC SBI,Koksara in prescribed form for non-loanee farmer under PMFBY and the information/data remitted to the insurance company/O.P 2 generating the acknowledgement of submitting CSC application placed in the record regarding the name of village where the complainant/insured farmer had grown paddy crop in Kharif 2018. Admittedly the CSC application form contend the name of village:- Tarapur though the declaration of the complainant made in the prescribed form under PMFBY placed in the record clearly shows that the  paddy crops in 2018 was grown by the complainant in the village of Sarasmal.
13. It is clearly proved form the contention of Letter No.6211 dt.21.10.2020 of the O.P 2/Chief District Agriculture Officer ,Kalahandi that village Sarasmal is coming under Dahagaon G.P of Koksara Block in the Dist of Kalahandi and further as for information receive form  Chief District Agriculture Officer ,Kalahandi/O.P 2 vide letter No.9806 dt.05.11.2022 that , Govt. of Odisha has declare 79.14% loss of paddy crop in Dahagaon G.P of Koksara Block of Kalahandi District during Khariff 2018.
14. Learned counsel for the O.P 1/Insurer draw our attention on the revise guideline of PMFBY details of which are there contended in their written version which we have gone thoroughly and most specifically on the clause /Para 17 of revise PMFBY which 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 . Here in this case there is no dispute that insurance premium is accepted by the insurer OP 1 in time from the concerned bank authority.
15. On perusal of the revised guideline of the PMFBY it is further ascertained from the Para 17.11 as contended in the written version of OP 1 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. It is also 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. 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.
16. Here, in this case admittedly there is mismatch of data submitted by the farmer/complainant and the date remitted by the CSC of SBI Junagarh regarding village where the crops Kharif 2018 was grown by the complainant only.
17. As per 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. As such the CSC of SBI Koksara is serving for the insurance company receiving consideration for such service of remittance of premium and correct information to the insurance company and for any negligence/omission or commission on the part of the CSC/SBI Koksara, the poor insured farmer /complainant should not be put into loss resulting frustration of very purpose of PMFBY of the government.
18. Nothing cogent evidence whatsoever placed in the record that, the insurer/OP 1 has ever verified the information details of the insured farmer/complainant or has ever notified the mismatch of the data or has ever asked the CSC/SBI, Koksara for any rectification of the data though a duty as such cast upon the insurer there in the revised guideline of PMFBY as discussed above. The contention of Chief District Agriculture Officer, Kalahandi vide his letter No.l6211 dt.21.10.20120 that  “the insurance company verified the application and wrongly approved the crop area” remained unchallenged/un rebutted.
19.  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 of his paddy crop grown in the village Sarasmal during Kharif 2018 and there is nothing fault is proved against the complainant, as such we are of the opinion that, the complainant is entitled for crop insurance benefit as claimed   in this complaint but not yet released by the insurer /Op1 is an act of unfair trade practice & deficient in provide service on the part of Op 1/insurance company towards  the complainant for which  there is sufficient cause to brought this complainant and it is  well maintainable under C.P .Act 2019.
20. In the present case the Insurance company/O.P No.1 has become too technical while settling the crop insurance claim under PMFBY which is meant for the poor farmers and acted arbitrarily by neglecting his duty as stated there in the revised PMFBY guideline . 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 settled, the complainant is entitled 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 Hon’ble 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.
21. As the aforesaid conduct of the OP.NO. 1 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 by awarding interest over the accrued insurance benefit payable to the complainant .
22. It is clearly proved from the contention of Letter No.6211 dt.21.10.2020 of the O.P 2/Chief District Agriculture Officer ,Kalahandi that village Sarasmal is coming under Dahagaon G.P of Koksara Block in the Dist of Kalahandi and further as per  information received form  Chief District Agriculture Officer ,Kalahandi/O.P 2 vide letter No.9806 dt.05.11.2022 that , Govt. of Odisha has declared 79.14% loss of paddy crop in Dahagaon G.P of Koksara Block of Kalahandi District during Khariff 2018 remain unchallenged /un-rebutted ..
23. The claim of sum insured of insurance benefit is of Rs. 31763.55  under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) for KLharif 2018 is not disputed or traversed by the O.Ps in any manner in this case .Hence ,the doctrine of non –traverse will rightly applicable. The opposite parties has 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.Ps shall be taken to be admitted accept as against a person 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 to get crops insurance benefit with interest from the date of filling of this complainant.
24.  In the facts and circumstances of this case, we concluded that, the complainant is entitled for release of crops insurance benefit  @ 79.14% of Rs. 31,763.55 i.e total Rs 25,137.67 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) from the OP.No.1(one) with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. from 19.08.2020 till its realization and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost to the compliant. We  found no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Op No. 2 (two). Hence it is ordered.

O R D E R

This consumer complaint is allowed in part on contest against the Op No 1 (one) & dismissed against the Op No. 2(two) with following direction :- (i) The M/s Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd/ Opposite Party No. 1 (one) is here by directed to release the  crops insurance benefit  @ 79.14% of sum insured Rs.31,763.55 i.e. total Rs 25,137.67 under Pradhan Mantri Fasala Bima Yojana (PMFBY) with interest @ 9% p. a from the date of filling of this complaint i.e. from dt.19.08.2020 till its realization and  Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost to the compliant.

(ii) it is further directed that, the aforesaid awarded amount is to be paid  by  M/s Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd/ Opposite Party No. 1 (one) 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 24^th May 2023under 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.