F I N A L O R D E R
On 30.12.2021, the complainant, Mr. Hiralal Khanra , has filed an application u/S 35 of the C. P. Act, 2019 against the Opposite Parties.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is an agriculturist and he cultivates Paddy and Potato in some of his agricultural lands. He is also a holder of Kissan Credit Card so issued by the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3. The complainant is an account-holder lying with the OP No.1for the year 2018-19 and the OP No.4 is the Insurer of the crops. The complainant resides in such an area of the District Purba Bardhaman where Potato is the main crop along with paddy. On each and every year, for cultivating Aman and Boro Paddy as well as Potato, loan through KCC Loan account used to sanction by the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 in favour of the complainant according to his agricultural land measuring more or less 0 .66 Satak . Sidling of Potato used to plant in the first and second week of the month of November of each year and potato crop is harvested by the cultivators in the month of February of the next year. Like each and every year, the complainant also cultivates potato in the year 2018-2019 by taking loan from his K.C.C. account. That his K.C.C. account No. is 11430510005326 and the amount of loan sanctioned was Rs. 60,000/- for the year 2018-2019 season for cultivating Boro Paddy, and Potato which was credited in the account of the complainant on 29.11.2018. After disbursing the loan amount, the OP bank authority debited Rs. 3537.78/- from the said loan account of the complainant on 01.01.2019 for paying insurance premium to the OP No.4. That in the year 2019 like other cultivators of all the Gram Panchayets of Jamalpur Block, the complainant also suffered loss of Potato by Natural Calamity occurred in the month of February, 2019. Subsequently, it was declared by the Government of West Bengal, Department of Agriculture, Crop Insurance Branch for Insurance benefits for the farmers who had taken KCC Loan. Thereafter, in the month of March, 2020, he and his surrounding cultivators came to learn that some of them, who are the KCC Loan holder of the OP No.1 and other financial institutions, have received 89% of Insurance benefit in respect of their KCC Loan amounts. Subsequently, the complainant, by updating his Pass Book of KCC loan account, came to learn that no amount has been credited in his account as Insurance benefit till June, 2020 which he is entitled to.
That after learning about the non-payment of the insurance benefits, the complainant visited several times to OP Nos. 1, 2 & 4 with request for disbursing of the insurance benefits but the OPs have not paid any heed to such request. He also visited to several offices like office of the B.D.O, office of the A.D.O. Jamalpur Block, Purba Bardhaman, Jaragram Gram Panchayet, Burdwan Zila Parishad, Jaragram Panchayat Samiti, Consumer Affairs Department, Purba Bardhaman etc. and submitted written request before those authorities but no fruitful result has been achieved. As a result, he along with other cultivators issued legal notices dt . 09.09.2020 and 26.08.2021 but they did not give reply to those notices. The Consumer Affairs Department also issued notice upon the OP No.1 fixing 29.09.2021 for tripartite meeting but on that date the OP No.1 up their hands from doing anything to solve the dispute. In this way, the OPs committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which the complainant suffers from mental pain, agony and harassment.
Upon this background, the complainant prays for direction upon the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 53,400/- [ Rs. 60,000/- (loan amount received) x 89% (declared insurance benefit)] along with interest @ 12% p.a. calculating from March, 2020 to till realization along with a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakh as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.
OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 have filed the W/V to contest the case . They do not raise any allegation contrary to the record. They also denied the matter referred to in Paragraph No. 4 of the complaint.
The specific case of the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 is that the complainant at no point of time suffered any loss. If any loss would have been suffered then the same must be quantified by the complainant in the present complaint. That the complainant not being aware of his rights and contentions approached the Bank for settlement of the claim. Neither the complainant has produced any order wherein he is eligible to the claim. Merely because other farmers received the claim, he also approached the Bank to settle his claim. They stated that he has not categorically stated on the basis of which documents, he is found to be eligible to receive the claim in his favour. Many claims were received by the OP No.3 which are found to be not eligible as such the same were declined. The legal notices on behalf of the complainant did not state that whether the present complainant is eligible to receive insurance claim in his favour. That the complainant’s assumption that merely debiting insurance does not ipso factor entitles him to claim insurance, unless the factors contributing to such eligibility is in his favour. In the instant complaint, neither the previous correspondences nor the present complain highlighted the same, giving rise to deficiency of service on the part of the OP Nos. 1 to 3. and as such the complainant is not eligible for insurance claim and as such the claim is declined by Insurance Company. It is also stated that the instant complaint is after thought and has been made with ulterior motives to coerce a Public Sector Organization to respect their unjustified demands and that when the Insurance Company did not recommend the claim settlement, there is no point in honouring their claim for settlement in his favour. As such the complainant be put strict evidence so as to unearth the truth.
Upon this background, the claims for dismissal of the case.
OP No.4, United Insurance Company Ltd., also contested the case by filing W/V denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form and prayer and that the complaint is wholly mis-conceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and liable to be dismissed and that the instant complaint is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary parties and non-joinder of necessary parties and that the complainant is barred by limitation.
The specific case of the OP No.4 is that as per Cl.No.17 [Collection of Proposal and Premium from Farmers] Sub-Clause No. 17.2 of the Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana [ PMFBY] – the concerned Lead Bank and Regional Offices/Administrative Offices of Commercial Bank/RRBs will provide necessary guidelines to the concerned Bank Branches and co-ordinate with them to ensure that all concerned Branch compulsorily remit the farmers premium electronically through NEFT/RTGS to be routed through NCIP to concerned Insurance Companies and submit the consolidated Proposal/Information in prescribed Format well within the stipulated cut-off dates and also upload the details of individual covered/insured Farmers on National Crop Insurance Portal. That as per Clause No. 17 Sub-clause No. 17.2 of the PMFBY- Bank are required to upload the Insured Farmers’ Data mandatorily on the National Crop Insurance Portal. No other platform shall be issued for uploading/submission of Farmers’ Data. Those farmers whose data is uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal shall only be eligible for Insurance coverage and accordingly the premium subsidy will also be released. In case, where farmers are denied Crop Insurance due to incorrect/partial/non-uploading of their details on Portal, concerned Bank/Intermediaries shall be responsible for payment of claims to them. Since, the farmers’ details were not uploaded into the Jaragram Gram Panchayat, the claims liability on account of wrong details filled rest with the concerned Bank which has issued the loan. That the alleged complaint of the complainant against the OP No. 4 is untenable, mis-conceived and vexatious one and allegations of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the OP No.4 has made in the instant complaint filed by the complainant are groundless , false and untenable in law. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief/reliefs, whatsoever, from this OP No.4 as prayed in the complaint.
Upon this background the OP No.4 did not commit any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice or negligence and as such the OP No.4 is entitled to get cost of Rs.10,000/- from the from the complainant.
Upon this, the OP No.4 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with Reasons.
The complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit and some Xerox copies of documents in support of his case. OPs did not file any questionnaire against the evidence of the complainant.
OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 did not file any evidence but the W/V supported by an affidavit filed by the OP No.4 has been treated as evidence-on-affidavit on behalf of the OP No.4. OP No.4 also filed Operational Guidelines regarding Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) .
The complainant has filed W.N.A. OP No.4 also filed W.N.A.
Perused the complainant, evidence-on-affidavit, W/Vs. , Xerox copies of documents and Operational Guidelines and the W.N.As of both sides.
From the evidence including the documentary evidence i.e the Savings Bank Pass Book of the complainant, it appears that the complainant is a Holder of Kisan Credit Card (KCC) being No. KCC/65/274 SB A/C No. 11430510005326 which is lying with the OP No.2. Loan sanctioned was Rs. 60,000/- for the year 2018-2019. This fact and the fact of debiting Rs. 3537.78/- as premium has also been admitted by the OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 in their W/V and admitted fact need not be proved as per law. It is also clear from the complaint, W/Vs and W.N.A. of the complainant and the OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 that the benefits of crop insurance has not been given to the complainant . OP No.1, 2 & 3 in their W.N.A. submitted that the complainant in proper time paid the insurance premium to the OP No.4 through the OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 and Op No.4 also received the said amount and the Bank authority also made entry the details property in the government portal. These OPs are only mediator for insurance premium collected and paid the insurance company i.e. the OP no.4 and it is admitted fact that the OP No.4 having denied this Insurance Premium. For this reason, the OP No.4 –Insurance Company is liable to pay the insurance benefits to the complainant through the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot deny the liability to the insured. That apart from the OP Nos. 1,2 & 3, no document is forthcoming before the Ld. Commission from which it can be clear that they intimated the wrong upload or non- upload plot of portal of Yojona which clearly indicates that the OP No.4 has not discharged the liability properly. The Insurance Company denied their liability.
From the case of the complainant and the W/V of OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 and their W.N.A, it is clear that the Bank Authority of OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 are the actual authority to pay the insurance premium on behalf of the complainant to the OP No.4-Insurance Company and the Op No.4 is the authority to receive the premium and inform it to the Bank Authority ie. OP Nos. 1,2 & 3. But the OP No.4 in his W/v as well as in the W.N.A. submitted that as per Clause No. 17 , Sub-clause 17.2 of Operational Guidelines of P.M.F.B. Y. that the Banks are required to upload the insured farmers’ date mandatorily on the National Crop Insurance Portal . No other platform shall be used for uploading/submission of farmers’ data and those farmers’ whose data is uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal shall only be eligible for Insurance Coverage and accordingly the premium subsidy will also be released. It furthers states that where farmers are denied Crop Insurance due to incorrect/partial/non-up-loading of their details on Portal, concerned Bank/Intermediary shall be responsible for payment of claims to them. Since, farmers’ details were not up-loaded in the relevant Portal, the claim liability on the ground of wrong details filled rest with the concerned Bank which has issued the Loan.
The Xerox copy of Operational Guidelines regarding P.M.F.B.Y supports the version of the OP No.4 regarding Clause No. 17 and Sub-Clause No. 17.2 . Therefore, it is clear from the case record including the materials on record as stated above that the Bank Authority has a duty to upload the entry he premium benefits of insurance in the Portal of Jaragram Gram Panchayat and cannot discharge their own liability to other authorities. From the submissions of both sides and materials on record, it is clear that the OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 though paid the insurance premium on behalf of the complainant, yet the complainant did not get the benefit of Insurance policy due to non-uploading the same with the relevant Portal. Even the Bank Authority (OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3) did not file any copy of the up-load entry into the relevant Portal to show that they discharged their liability by doing the needful, without shifting the liability to other authority.
Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 committed deficiency in service and negligent in handling the case of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.4.
As a result, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the Consumer Complaint No. 236/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and dismissed on contest against the OP No.4.
The OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are directed to pay Rs.53,400/-( Fifty Three Thousand Four Hundred ) only with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from March, 2020 along with compensation of Rs.12,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant by an account payee cheque jointly and severally with 45 days from the date of receipt of this order till realization , failing which the said amount shall carry further interest @ 6% p.a. till realization.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties on free of cost.
Member Member President
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman. D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhama D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.
