Counsel for:

The Complainant:-Self

The Opposite Party No.1-Mr. D.R.Bohidar, Advocate

The Opposite Party No.2. Mr. S.K.Agrawal,Advocate

The Opposite Party No.3&4: Self

                                               ORDER 

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. The present Consumer Complaint is filed against the Ops alleging deficiency of service for non- release of crops insurance benefit under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY).
2. The complainant has prayed for an order directing the O.Ps to release the crop insurance benefit under PMFBY for the damage of paddy corps grown in Kharif 2017 and further prayed for an award of compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony & financial loss and Rs.10,000/-  towards litigation cost  suffered due to deficient service of O.Ps and further prayed  for all  other  relief(s) as the learned Commission may deem fit & proper. 
3. Complainant is remaining absent on the date fixed for hearing. However, in view of Section 38(3)(c)  of C.P.Act,2019 case record taken up today to decide the complaint on merit.
4. Perused the material available on record.Heard the learned counsel for the op present. We have our thoughtful consideration to the respective contention and submission advanced by the parties.
5. The facts as stated in the complaint and emerged from   the documents attached with the complaint petition to consider for proper decision of the disputes are that: - the complainant is a farmer by occupation. During Kharif 2017 he had grown paddy crop over land under Khata No.154 of Mouza /village -Sahajkana comes under Talmala G.P of district Kalahandi and got it insured under Pradhan Mantri Fasala Bima Yojana (PMFBY) with the OP 1/Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd paying proper premium of Rs.1621.80 on 26.7.2017 which was deducted by the OP 2 from his SBI Account bearing No.31509803013 and remitted the same to the insurer OP 1.Due to scarcity of rainfall there was heavy damage to the Kharif paddy of the complainant. Accordingly, Agriculture Department, Government of Odisha has declared loss of 75% of paddy crop in the Talmala G.P during Kharif 2017 but insurance company OP 1 has not released the crop insurance benefit to the complainant though all the co-villagers have already received their crop insurance benefit under PMFBY. The complainant approached the Consumer Counseling Centre there in the premises of DCDRC, Kalahandi ,Bhawanipatna but no avail. Hence, this complaint.
6. To substantiate his claim the complainant filed the true copy of his account statement vide A/C No.31509803013 maintained with the  SBI(ADB),Junagarh/OP.No 2 and copy of ROR vide Khata No.154  of village Sahajakana , Ps-Junagarh,Dist-Kalahandi recorded in the name of Budu Naik (the father of the complainant) Copy of Form of declaration meant for non-loanee farmer dually filled up of the required information ,Copy of undertaking furnished by the complainant during insurance, Copy of showing certificate obtained from the Asst. Agriculture Officer ,Charbahal ,Proposal form –Non Loanee for insurance of crop under PMFBY. Copy of payment sleep towards successful payment of premium to the op TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, vide Order  No: 7875521,Transaction No.JSBI5529003994 ,dt. 26 July 2017.
7.  On being notice O.Ps have appeared and filed their respective written version denying the complaint allegation on all its material particulars.
8. The OP 1 /TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd  appeared through their learned counsel Shri D.R.Bohidar and filed their written version challenging the maintainability of this consumer complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops as defined under C. P. Act and further contended that,  there is no cause of action to lay any claim what so ever against the OP 1 and that, this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Further it is stated that, the consumer is not in clean hand as he has already approached to the Consumer Counseling Centre for settlement of the claim where upon this answering OP -1has filed their written version but the compliant was remaining absent for which complaint was dismissed but here the complainant again filed this complaint with an ulterior motive with the same cause of action and on the same ground only to harass the insurer/OP 1 as such deserve to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
9. On merit the OP 1 /Insurer admitted the fact that, as per the complaint allegation the insurance company has found the  account number of the complainant as 31509803013. An application for crop insurance under PMFBY was applied for Kharif 2017 and on being traced of the farmer details in PMFBY portal data (https://pmfby.gov.in) of Kharif 2017,the details are found as follows:- Application number- 1016644167 , Name of applicant - Banamali Naik ,Application status- Rejected on the ground that name of the applicant not found in the land record.
10. The op 1 further  submitted that, as per the PMFBY operational guideline, the insured farmer forfeits the premium and the right to claim(if any) if the material facts furnished in the proposal form are wrong or incorrect. However, in this instant case the insurance company/OP1 has refunded the premium to the complainant. The premium refunded details are given as  follows:- Bank Name:- State Bank of India, A/c No.: 31509803013 ,IFSC-SBIN0002072,UTR-NFT-301500997GN00049XXXXXXX. Amount :-Rs.1610/- refunded on dt. 15.03.2021. 
11. To substantiate his claim the OP 1 has  filed the copy of order dt.5.8.2021 passed in the Consumer Counseling Centre ,premises of DCDRC, Kalahandi which contend the facts that, the complainant remaining absent in spite of several call for settlement. Hence, complaint of Banamali Naik vide No.29 of 2019 along with other 13 Nos. of complaint was dropped.
12.  The OP 2/SBI ADB Junagarh has appeared through their learned Counsel Shri S.K.Agrawal and filed their written version  denying the petition allegation on all its material particulars. It has contended that, there is no cause of action lies with the complainant to filed this complaint against the OP 2/ Bank and it is barred by Law of Limitation. It is further submitted that, the Op 2/Bank has no knowledge whether the complainant is a nominal cultivator and has landed property recorded in his name at Mouza Masigaon  and asked the complainant to strict prove of the same. However, it is admitted  that, there is a Saving Bank Account  No.31509803013 with the OP 2/ SBI (ADB) Junagarh in the name of Kachu Charan Naik and there  is no account found in the name of the complainant Banamali Naik and even though, there is a credit balance of Rs.3245/- as on 31.7.2017. Premium amount of Rs.1621.80 has not been debited from his account as the Bank has not availed any mandate or instruction from the account holder . With this submission the OP 2/ Bank has denied the claim of deducting premium amount from  the account of the complainant and asked to strict proof of the same. It is further submitted that, the answering OP 2 /Bank has no role to play in insuring the crop of the non loanee farmer /complainant and as such the Bank/OP 2 is not a necessary party in this case and that, there is no deficiency in service from the side of the OP 2/Bank as such complaint is to be dismissed with cost. To substantiate their version, the Bank/OP 2 relied on the Bank statement for the period of 25.03.2017 to 25.12.2017 for no such account statement of the bank is filed .
13. OP 3 /Asst. Agriculture Officer, Junagarh submits his written version denying his liability to assess the yield loss of farmer and for settlement of crop insurance claim under PMFBY  and seek to exonerate from any liability in this complaint  as there is no deficiency in service on the part  of the OP 3 towards the complainant.
14. The OP 4/Chief District Agriculture Officer, Kalahandi Bhawanipatna submits their written version containing the facts that, the complaint of Banamali Naik (here the complainant) under PMFBY 2017 was forwarded to the Nodal Officer, PMFBY, O/O –DA&FT(O)Bhubaneswar vide their Office letter No.6139 dt.2.7.2022  seeking information regarding the claim settlement of the complainant. Accordingly, the Nodal Officer, PMFBY,O/o DA & FT(O) Bhubaneswar has communicated the actual yield , threshold yield and claim payout(%age) of G.P Talmala (Insurance Unit) of Junagarh Block during the year 2017. Copy of said information on claim payout of the complainant GP is annexed there with the written version is placed on the record . It is further stated that, as per guideline of PMFBY at serial No.23.4 the implementing Insurance Company is to settle the eligible claims /payment to the insured farmer and the insurance benefit is to be remitted directly into beneficiary account as per pre defined timeline.
15. During hearing of this case complainant remaining absent. Heard the Ops present. Perused the complaint petition, written version of Ops, and documents placed on record by the both parties and in view of Sec.38(3)( c) of C.P.Act 2019  decide the complaint on merit.
16. Facts admitted is that, the complainant had insured his paddy crop grown in Kharif 2017 paying adequate premium to the OP 1/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vide application No.1016644167 which was rejected by the insurer OP 1/insurance company  for the reason that, name of the complainant is not found in the land record and refunded the said premium of Rs.1610/- to the account of the complainant vide A/c No.31509803013 maintained with the SBI,IFSC SBIN0002072 on dt.15.03.2021 by way of UTR-NFT-031500997GN00049XXXXXXX.
17. On perusal of the proposal form-non loanee farmer /complainant and  undertaking made by the farmer/complainant, the sowing certificate issued by the Asst.Agriculture Officer, Charbahal, Block: Junagarh, Dist.Kalahandi in favour of the complainant dt.24.7.2017,it is ascertained that, the complainant being the legal heir of recorded tenant Budu Naik vide Khata No.154,Plot No.646 of village- Sahajkana under Talmala GP of Junagarh Block, Dist.-Kalahandi had grown paddy crop in Kharif 2017 verifying of which the Asst.Agriculture Officer,Charbahal has issued sowing certificate in the name of complainant Banamali Naik containing therein that, the complainant has  grown paddy crop over Plot No.646 under Khata No.154 for an area of 1.40 hectors. And as  per the report submitted by OP 4/ Chief District Agriculture Officer,Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna the crop of Kharif 2017 in the Talmala GP of Block Junagarh ,Dist. Kalahandi got damage during Kharif 2017 and the claim payout is fixed @ 10.92%. The copy of said report is placed in the record remain unchallenged.
18. The OP 1 /insurance company without verifying the afore said  documents and without giving any opportunity to the complainant for establishing the fact that, he has insurable right to insured the paddy crop grown over the Plot No.646, under Khata No. 154 of village Sahajkana recorded in the name of his father Budu Naik . No iota of evidence has been placed by the Ops that, the complainant has no insurable right over the paddy crop grown over the said agriculture land in Kharif 2017 as such we are of the opinion that , the rejection of application of the complainant for insurance of crop under PMFBY vide application 1016644167 unilaterally  is certainly an unfair act &  deficient service on the part of Ops towards the insured complainant. 
19. The complainant has filed the copy of front page of his SB Account vide No.31509803013 issued in the name of the complainant Banamali Naik, S/o Budu Naik, At/O Sahajkana via: Atigaon, Junagarh issued by SBI,ADB Junagarh vide Branch Code No.2072, CIF No.85916744879 is remaining unchallenged/un rebutted. The OP 2/Bank admitted to the extent that there is a Saving Bank account No.31509803013 with the OP 2 /Bank but it is averred that, the account is  in the name of Kanhu Charan Naik and that, there is no account in the name of complainant Banamali Naik. In this respect the OP/ Bank has relied on the said Bank account statement for the period of 25.3.2017 to 25.12.2017 but no such document has been placed on the record. Accordingly we are unable to hold that the complainant is not the SB A/c holder of SBI ADB Junagarh/OP2 vide A/c No.31509803013 rather the fact that, the insurer OP 1/insurance company  has refunded the insurance premium amount into the said account of the complainant Banamali Naik is remain undisputed as such it is proved the complainant is a customer/consumer of OP 2/Bank being an account holder and that ,the OP/Bank has deposed falsehood before this Commission concealing the truth derail from his duty to cooperate his costumer/complainant  to get settled of the insurance claim under PMFBY  is  a matter of great concern certainly construe deficiency in service on the part of op/Bank.
20. Here, the complainant has failed to prove that, he had availed any agriculture loan from the Op 2/Bank for growing paddy crop in Kharif 2017 and also failed to adduce cogent evidence to prove that said premium amount had been paid to the Op 1 /Insurer through the OP 2/Bank by deducting from his SB account No.31509803013. As such we are of the opinion that, the OP 2/ Bank has no liability under PMFBY towards the insured complainant for settlement of the crop insurance claim.
21. Based on aforesaid discussion we found no negligence or deficient in providing service on the part of OP 2/Bank towards the complainant for settlement of claim of the crop insurance benefit payable to the complainant under PMFBY .
22. It is ascertained from the payment slip vide transaction No.JSBI5529003994 that, the premium has been paid by the complainant to the OP1/Insurer successfully on dt.5.3.2021.It is further found that the OP1/insurer has admitted the fact that, the premium amount has been returned back to the complainant account on dt.15.03.2021 rejecting the application of the complainant proved that insurance as on date of loss i.e during  Kharif crop 2017 was in force  and that, the complainant is a consumer of insurance service of the OP 1/Insurance company .
23. Admittedly, there is an unexplained delay of return back of the insurance premium to the complainant which is clear instance of negligence and deficient service on the part of the Op 1/insurance company certainly caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant need to be compensated by the OP 1/insurer.
24. The PMFBY is a beneficial scheme to protect the interest of the poor farmer and it is found frustrated due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP 1 insurer. If the complainant could have given an opportunity of being heard before rejection of his application and the insurance premium could have refunded earliest the complainant could have availed insurance of his crop in any other mode may not be disputed.
25. Based on above facts & circumstances and settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that there is negligence & deficiency in service on the part of OP1/ TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd, for their unilateral ejection of the application of the complaint for insurance of crop grown in Kharif 2017 and for their unexplained delay in refund of the premium to the complainant without settling the claim of the complainant under PMFBY. As such the complainant in this case is entitle for the insurance benefit with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filling of this complainant till its realization subject to deduction of the insurance premium which is already refunded to the A/C of the complainant and further entitle for the cost of this litigation. Hence it is ordered.

                                        ORDER

                    This consumer complaint is allowed in part against the Ops on contest. The Op-1/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd is hereby directed to pay the insurance benefit under PMFBY with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filling of this complainant i.e 25.11.2021  till the date of realization  subject to deduction of the insurance premium which has  already been refunded to the A/C of the complainant. The insurance claim be settled as per  the aforesaid application vide No.1016644167 of the complainant & in view of  undisputed claim pay out (%age) in Talmala G.P i.e loss @ 10.92 % of  paddy grown over 1.40 ha. in Kharif 2017 and further directed to pay Rs 5,000/- towards cost of this litigation to the complainant .This order is to be comply within four weeks from the date of received of this order failing which the Op -1 (one) is liable to pay compensation @ Rs.500/- per day till its realization  to the complainant .

      Dictated and corrected by me.

              President

       I   agree.

                        Member                                                            

                   Pronounced  in open Commission today on this   27^th April 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission. Pending application if any is also stands disposed off.

         Copy of this judgment be provided to the parties free of cost .The judgment be uploaded forth with on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.  Ordered accordingly.