F I N A L O R D E R
Complainant is present through the Ld. Advocate.
O.P No. 3 is present through the Ld. Advocate.
The case is taken-up for further hearing and order.
Heard both the sides in full.
On 12.03.2021, the complainant, Buddhadeb Mondal 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 Boro 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. The O.P. No.2 is the superior authority of O.P. No.1. The complainant is an account-holder lying with the O.P. No.1 for the year 2018-19 and the O.P. No.3 is the Insurer of the crops. On each and every year, the complainant for cultivating Potato in his agricultural land measuring more or less 04 Bighas. Sidling of Potato used to plant in the first and second week 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 number is 11440510001007 and the amount of loan sanctioned was Rs.50,000/- for the year 2018-2019 season for cultivating Potato which was credited in the account of the complainant on 23.10.2018. After disbursing the loan amount, the O.P. bank authority debited Rs.2910/- from the said loan account of the complainant on 20.12.2018 for paying insurance premium to the O.P. No.3. In this contest it is important to mention here that the complainant has received Rs.9378/- as benefit of insurance for paddy on 10.07.2019. That in the year 2018-2019 like other cultivators of all the Gram Panchayats of Mongalkot Block and the other blocks of Purba Bardhaman Districts, the complainant also suffered loss of Potato by Natural Calamity. Insurance benefit for each and every non-loanee farmer and loanee farmer who had taken KCC Loan from several Banks, Cooperatives, SKUS etc. of the Gram Panchayat of Mongalkot along with other Gram Panchayats and blocks of Burdwan and other districts was granted. Thereafter in the month of May and July, 2020 the complainant surrounding cultivators came to learn that some of them, who are the KCC Loan holder of the several financial institutions and other Banks of Chanak Gram Panchayat and other Gram Panchayats, that they have received 84.99 % of insurance benefit in respect of their KCC Loan amounts and the amount of the insurance benefit has been credited in their loan account in two phrases. Subsequently, the complainant, by uploading his Pass Book of KCC loan account, came to learn that no amount has been credited in his account as Insurance benefit regarding potato for the season of 2018-19 which he is entitled to. But till date he has not received any correspondence from the Bank authority about nonpayment of insurance benefit.
That after learning about the non-payment of the insurance benefits, the complainant visited several times to O.P. No. 1 with request for disbursing of the insurance benefits but the O.Ps 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. etc. but no fruitful result has been achieved. As a result, he along with other cultivators submitted a letter dated 15.06.2020 before the O.P. No.1 requesting them to credit the insurance benefit in their respective loan account but in spite of receiving the same under their seal and signature had not given any reply of the same. Subsequently notices under the right to information act has been sent by one of the cultivator namely Provash Thakur to the Add. Chief Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of W.B. Nabanna, Howrah and United India Insurance Company Ltd. In reply of which those authorities intimated regarding the claim percentage which is 84.99%. Thereafter the said cultivator again sent one mail to the O.P. No.3 regarding insurance coverage payment and insurance benefit in reply of which the O.P. No.3 intimated the complainant that they have not covered any potato loanee application from PBGB, Jalapara. The complainant submitted another letter before the O.P. NO.1 by requesting to furnish receipt of insurance premium on 02.07.2020 but the O.P. No.1 failed to provide the same. Moreover in spite of receiving the insurance premium and several requests the O.Ps neither takes any initiative to pay the insurance benefit nor settled the dispute. In this way, the OPs committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and for those acts, the O.Ps are liable to compensate along with compensation for mental pain and harassment.
Upon this background, the complainant prays for a direction upon the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.42,495/-[Rs.50,000/- (loan amount received) X 84.99% (declared insurance benefit)] along with interest @ 12% p.a. calculating from 20.12.2018 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, thought having receipt the summons but did not bother to approach before this Commission by filing any W/V or adducing evidence or testing the veracity of the complaint behind Written evidence-on-affidavit. So, the case was heard ex parte against them.
OP No.3-United India Insurance Co. Ltd appeared by filing W/V denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that the complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed and the complaint is barred by the principles of estopple, waiver and acquiescence . The instant complaint is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary parties and non-joinder of necessary parties and that the complaint is barred by law of limitation.
The specific case of the OP No 3 is that this OP-United India Insurance Co. Ltd has not covered any of the loanee farmers of Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (P.B.G.B), Jalpara Branch, since the concerned Bank had not uploaded any proofs of payment of premium into the portal. Moreover, as per the Operational Guidance of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, it is mandatory to upload the payment of premium in portal as proof in case the premium is paid by the concerned farmer. Furthermore, no other method will be applicable to access the documents of the loanee farmers. If there is any mistake, the concerned Bank will be sole liable to pay the claim. Moreover, this OP had not demanded any subsidy from the State Government or the Central Government for the said farmers of PBGB, Jalpara Branch. Moreover, the OP No.3 further begs to submit that the complainant also admits in Para-5 of his instant complaint petition that the said complainant sent one mail to this OP regarding insurance coverage and payment of insurance benefit in reply of which this OP intimated the complainant that this OP has not covered any potato loanee application from PBGB, Jalpara Branch. After receiving the intimation about such kind of reply by this OP, the complainant submits another letter before OP No.1 PBGB, Jalpara Branch requesting to furnish receipt of Insurance Premium on 02.07.2020. But the OP No.1 PBGB, Jalpara Branch has failed to provide the same. Thus, from the aforesaid admission of the complainant in his complaint petition, it is crystal clear that this O.P. No. 3 –United Insurance Co Ltd. is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant in the light of what is stated about and if any claim is admissible that this is completely borne upon the O.P. No.1 PBGB, Jalpara Branch.
The OP No.3 further stated that there has/have not been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice or negligence on the part of this OP No.3 and as such the instant complaint is liable to be summarily dismissed with heavy costs.
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.
O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 did not file W/V to contest the case. So, the case was heard ex parte against them but the O.P. No.3 filed evidence-on-affidavit along with some documents and Operational Guidelines regarding Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (P.M.F.B.Y.).
The complainant has filed questionnaires. O.P. No.3 files reply against the said questionnaires. Both Complainant and O.P. No.3 filed WNA.
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 SB A/C. No.11440510001007 which is lying with the O.P. No.1. Loan sanctioned was Rs.50,000/- for the year 2018-2019. It is also clear from the complaint, W/V of O.P. No.3 and W.N.A. of the complainant and the OP No. 3 that the benefits of crop insurance have not been given to the complainant.
From the case of the complainant and the W/V of OP No. 3 and the W.N.A, it is clear that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 Bank Authority have not covered any of the loanee farmer of Paschim Banga Gramin Bank(PBGB) , Jalpara Branch, since concerned Bank had not uploaded any proof of payment of premium into portal and as per Operational Guidance of PMFBY, it is mandatory to upload the payment of premium in portal as proof in case the premium is paid by the concerned farmer and 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 complainant also on being oath by an affidavit corroborated the case as depicted in the complaint; nothing can be disbelieved of the s aid unchallenged evidence of the complainant.
Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 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.3.
As a result, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint No. 42 of 2021 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed against OP No.3 as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3
The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs. 42,495//- (Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Five) only with a simple interest @ 6% p.a. from July, 2020 till the date of actual payment , along with compensation of Rs.8,000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) only to the complainant by an account payee cheque jointly and severally within 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.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President-in-Charge
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman
Member President-in-Charge
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman
