The Complainant:-Self

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

The Opposite Party No.2&3:-Self

The Opposite Party No-4;-Not appeared.

                                               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 factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant as emerged from the case record is that, the complainant is a farmer by occupation. During Kharif 2017 he had grown paddy crops over land under Khata No.732 of Mouza /village –Masigaon  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.239.20 on 29.7.2017 for sum assured amount of Rs. 11960/-which was deducted by the OP 4/customer service point from his  SB Account bearing No.84002508766 and remitted the same to the insurer OP 1 /Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. It is further contended that, due to scarcity of rainfall there was heavy damage to the Kharif paddy crops 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/Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd has not yet 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 SB A/C No.84002508766 maintained with the  Utkala Grameen Bank ,Chicheiguda /OP.No 4 and copy of ROR vide Khata No.732  of village Masigaon  , Ps-Junagarh, Dist-Kalahandi, Copy of payment sleep towards successful payment of premium of Rs. 239.20 for sum assured amount of Rs. 11960 to the Op 1/ TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, vide   Acknowledgement No. 1016870938 ,dt. 29/07/2017.Adhar Card of the complainant vide NO. 3686 7347 6744 .
7.  On being notice O.Ps No. 1,2,&3 have appeared and filed their respective written version but the Op No 4 did not choose to appeared though notice is properly served through Registered Post vide consignment Number RO09490046IN available on the record.
8. The OP 1 /TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd appeared through their learned counsel Shri D.R.Bohidar and filed their written version denying the complaint allegation on all its material particulars and also  challenged  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(one) 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 -1 has 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 1 /TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd submitted that, the name of the complainant /farmer is not traceable in PMFBY portal data (https://pmfby.gov.in) of Kharif 2017 as there mentioned in the complaint and that, till date no claim has been registered in the name of the complainant with the insurance company/Op 1 and that, the complainant should be directed to submit Application Number ,KCC Account No.(in case of lonee farmer ) ,premium receipt copy & SB account number (in case of non-lonee farmer) of the complainant /farmer so  that it will be helpful in tracking the claim of the complainant.
10. 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 Dama Majhi  vide No.30 of 2019 along with other 13 Nos. of complaint was dropped.
11.  The OP 2 /Asst. Agriculture Officer, Junagarh has filed  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.
12. The OP 3/Chief District Agriculture Officer, Kalahandi Bhawanipatna has filed  their written version containing the facts that, the complaint of Dama Majhi  (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 vide his e-mail dt. 05.07.2022. 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 time line. It is further stated that, as per the PMFBY guideline at Sl.No. 23.4 :-“ The loss reports and Actual Yield data shall be approved /received (in case of any discrepancy/concern the authenticity /correctness of report /data ) by the insurance Company based on which the eligible claims shall be calculated through the portal and accordingly the payment of claims shall be initiated by the concerned insurance Company and remitted directly into beneficiary account as per predefined timelines”. It is further stated that, from the above statement the insurance Company should settle the claim pay out of the complainant subject to remittance of premium within the scheduled data under PMFBY 2017 . 
13. As per the report submitted by OP 4/ Chief District Agriculture Officer, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna It is found that, 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 the said report placed in the record remaining unchallenged.
14. It is proved from the Copy of payment sleep vide Acknowledgement No. 1016870938 ,dt. 29/07/2017 that premium of Rs. 239.20 for sum assured amount of Rs. 11960 is successfully paid to the op 1/ TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD through Utkala Grameen Bank ,Chicheiguda vide SB A/C Vide No. 84002508766 as such the complainant is the consumer of the Op 1(one) and insurance claim of the complainant is not yet settled as such we are of the opinion that ,there is sufficient cause of action to bring this complainant before this Commission under the jurisdiction of which the complainant is residing and it is found in time well maintainable under the C.P Act 2019. Dropped of complaint before the Consumer Counseling Center due to absence of the complainant may not debarred the complainant to redress his grievance before this Commission as such submission of the OP 1/Insurer  that ,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 is not acceptable .
15. Learned counsel for the O.P 1/Insurer draw our attention on the revise guideline of PMFBY & 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 . However, in this case we found that, the Op No 1 /insurance company has not disputed the acceptance of insurance  premium of the complainant in time from the concerned bank authority.
16. Nothing cogent evidence whatsoever placed in the record that, the insurer/OP 1 has ever verified the information details of the insured farmer/complainanthe OP 1 /insurance company without considering the afore said information available in the record and even after their appearance in this case, if the op no.1 could have accepted   the detail of the farmer/complainant as per the payment sleep vide Acknowledgement No. 1016870938 ,dt. 29/07/2017 which is their available in the record remaining open /unchallenged, they could have got required information to settled the claim of the complainant but the Op No. 1 /insurer has  asked the complainant to give details of Application Number ,KCC Account No.(in case of lonee farmer ) ,premium receipt copy & SB account number (in case of non-lonee farmer) of the complainant /farmer so  that it will be helpful in tracking the claim of the complainant is an  unfair act certainly caused mental agony & financial loss to the complainant may not be discarded.
17. Nothing placed on record to hold that, the OP 1 has ever taken any steps to search the detail information of the complainant /farmer to settle the claim though, the duty cast on the insurance company in the PMFBY guideline at Sl.No. 23.4 that,“ the loss reports and Actual Yield data shall be approved /received (in case of any discrepancy/concern the authenticity /correctness of report /data ) by the insurance Company based on which the eligible claims shall be calculated through the portal and accordingly the payment of claims shall be initiated by the concerned insurance Company and remitted directly into beneficiary account as per predefined timelines”,  is certainly an unfair act &  deficient service on the part of Op. No 1/insurance company towards the insured complainant. 
18. Here, the complainant has failed to prove that, he had availed any agriculture loan from the Op 4/Bank for growing paddy crop in Kharif 2017 however it is proved that the required premium is usefully remitted to the insurer /OP-1 . However the, clause /Para 17 of revise PMFBY  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 Porta but here the  OP 4/ Bank dit not appeared to assist the Op No 1/insurer for settlement of the crop insurance claim under PMFBY though  notice is properly served on dt.27/09/2022 through Registered Post vide consignment Number RO09490046IN available on the record. We are of the opinion that , such an act of the OP 4/Utkala Grameen Bank ,Chicheiguda is an act of unfair trade practice  &  deficient in providing service towards the insured/ complainant certainly caused mental agony & financial loss to the complainant need to be compensated .
19. 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.
20. As the aforesaid conduct of the OP.NO. 1 & 4 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 and by awarding monetary compensation to the complainant payable by  the OP 1/insurer and Op 4(four) /Bank .  
21. Based on above facts & circumstances we are of the opinion that, there is negligence & deficiency in service on the part of OP1/ TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd, for non release crops insurance benefit under PMFBY for the loss @ 10.92 % of paddy Crops of the complainant grown over the agricultural land of complainant in the village of Masigaon under Talamala GP of Junagarh Block of Kalahandi District during  Kharif-2017. 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 .So also the the OP 4/Utkala Grameen Bank ,Chicheiguda is liable to compensate the  complainant for their negligence & non cooperation to settled the claim of the complainant, further the complainant is entitle for the cost of this litigation. Hence it is ordered.

                                              ORDER

       This consumer complaint is allowed in part against the Op-1/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd on contest and exparte against the OP 4/Utkala Grameen Bank ,Chicheiguda and dismissed against the other Ops with the following direction :-

(i).  The Op-1/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd is hereby directed to pay the insurance benefit  @ 10.92 % of sum assured of Rs. 11960/ i.e Rs.1,306/-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.

(ii)  The OP 4/Utkala Grameen Bank ,Chicheiguda is here by directed to pay Rs, 25,000/- as compensation to the  complainant for their negligence & non cooperation to settled the crops insurance claim of the complainant under PMFBY.

(iii) The OP NO 1(ONE) and 4(FOUR)

are further directed to pay Rs 5,000/- each to the complainant towards cost of this litigation.

(iv) This order is to be comply within four weeks from the date of received of this order failing which the Op -1 (one) & 4(four) are liable to pay compensation @ Rs.500/- each per day till its realization  to the complainant .

      Dictated and corrected by me.

              President

       I   agree.

                        Member                                                            

                   Pronounced  in open Commission today on this   7^th June 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, they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order receipt from this Commission.

  Ordered  accordingly.