Counsel for:

The Complainant:-Shri R.K. Mund , Advocate.

The Opposite Party No-1:- D.R.Bahidar , Advocate.

The Opposite Party No-2& 3:- Non appeared.

ORDER

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. The Complaint is filed against the Ops alleging deficiency of service for non- release of crops insurance benefit for the damages of Kharif crops 2019-20 and prayed for an order  directing  the O.P parties to pay the insurance benefit under PMFBY scheme along with compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/-within a stipulated time period along with additional interest @12% per annum in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
2. 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.
3. Perused  the material available on record. Complainant has raised deficiency of service on the part of Ops for non release of crop insurance benefit for the loss of Kharif crops 2019-20 . It is alleged that the complainant had insured his paddy crop paying adequate premium of Rs.1820/- on dt.24.07.2019 to the Opposite Party No.1 for insurance of his paddy crop grown over Ac.1.18Decl . of village Jamunabahal during  kharif 2019-20 but unfortunately paddy crop got damage 70% due to deficiency  of rain water. The Opposite Party has not settled the insurance claim till date. Accordingly he prayed for an order directing Opp.Party to release the crop insurance benefit along with compensation and litigation cost.
4. On being notice, the Opp.Party Insurance Company appeared and filed their written version admitting the crops insurance of the complainant but disputed the damage of the crop as claimed by the complainant. It is contended that in the village of Jamunabahal under Daspur G.P of district Kalahandi threshold yield (TY) was 23.07 and actual yield(AY)  was 26.5 as such there was no damage of paddy crops in Kharif 2019-20. As such the complainant is not entitle for any crops insurance benefit under PMFBY which remain un-rebutted/unchallenged .
5. The complainant failed to adduce any cogent evidence so to substantiate his claim. No scrap of paper has been filed by the complainant to prove damage of paddy crops in Kharif 2019-20  in the village Jamunabahal of Daspur G.P District Kalahandi so also the complainant has failed to file any other authenticated documents to hold  that, he has suffered crop loss during Kharif 2019-20.
6. As per Sec.38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record ; as such it casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider/seller, irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.
7. Law is well settled that,  complainant is to prove deficiency in service as alleged against the Ops but here the complainant failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. We are of our opinion that this complaint sans merits hence, dismissed. However,  no order as to cost.

  Dictated and corrected by me.

President

I   agree.

Member                                      President

Pronounced in open Commission today on this   12^th January 2023under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly.

Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Member.                                             President