DATE OF DISPOSAL: 24.07.2024

PER:  SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK, MEMBER (W)

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his  grievance before this Commission. 

2. The complainants No.1 and 2 are advocates and cultivators as well. The complainant Nos. 3 & 4 is cultivators and 5 &6 are home makers and cultivators. All the complainants have paid premium of crop insurance while receiving agriculture (Kharif) loans from the respective Banks i.e. O.P.No.2 & 4 for improvement of their agriculture field. The O.P.No.1 is Manager-in-charge of M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd has under taken Agriculture Insurance in Odisha for the year 2017-18 and 2 to 4 are Bankers service providers who provided loans to the above named consumer cultivators at the time of Kharif cultivation in 17-18 to improve their agriculture field. The O.P.No.4 is under control of O.P.No.3. Besides this they have collected agriculture insurance premium money from the consumers for the O.P.No.1. In case of disputes by the O.P.No.1 regarding the deposit of premium amount of the complainant consumers, the O.P.No.3 & 4 are to furnish the lists of consumers with date of deposit as has been furnished by the O.P.No.2. There are crops loss to the extent of 33% to 50% have been affected by two natural calamities  “CHAKADA POK (pest attack) and unseasoned rain in 2017 (October and November) as reported by the competent Authority the Tahasildar and Agriculture Officer, Patrapur, after being approved by the District Collector, Ganjam. But so far no action has been taken by the Insurance Company to pay the eligible insurance to the affected cultivators even after request by the complainant No.1. The complainants are therefore pray to the scheme of agriculture insurance declared both by the central and the State Governments. Although the complainant No.2 and 6 have paid required insurance premium through the Manager, Bank of India, Jarada Branch and No.1, 3 to 5 through the Secretary, Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Jaradagada under the Patrapur Branch of the Berhampur Central Co-operative Bank ltd. Respectively in the agriculture year 2017-18, the above insurance company has not paid the incurrence amount so far. The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Jarada Branch has furnished a computerized lump sum statement along with date of deposit of insurance premium with the Insurance Company where as the O.P.No.3 has intimated in his letter No. 940/19-20 dated 28.06.2019 that the crop insurance premium for the Kharif year 2017-18 have been deposited in lump sum with the appropriate insurance company without furnishing the actual dates of deposits with their receipt number or other modes of deposits of the premium amount in the concerned insurance company even after several requests by the complainant No.1. The crop loss sustained was 33% to 50% at least approximate minimum of 33% of the loan amount sanctioned should have been taken as pecuniary loss, which comes to approximately Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainants prayed to direct the O.Ps who are actually liable to pay the eligible insurance money to the premium holder cultivators with costs of litigation of this case to meet the ends of justice.

3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Parties.

4. The Opposite Party No.1 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the present claim by a group having different cause of action is not maintainable and hence the claim is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainants have taken crop loan from the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Sociality (PACS) and all the transaction and payment of premium has made directly to the PACS.  The complainants have not made the PACS as necessary party in this claim case, and hence the present claim suffers for non-joinder of the PACS as necessary party, and hence the present claim made by the complainant against this O.P. is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. This O.P. is merely acting as an “implementing agency” of the State Government for the purpose of administering the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. This O.P. collects premium from the Nodal Banks/other financial institutions in terms of provisions of the scheme. The complainants have not submitted the reports of the Government agency about the crop loss sustained to the complaints. The allegations of deficiency of service leveled against this O.P. are not maintainable as there is no such claim or intimation made before this O.P. at any point of time. Hence the O.P.No.1 prayed to dismiss the case.

                5. The O.P.No.3 & 4 filed written version through their advocate. It is stated that the facts and contents of the complaint petition are not all true and the same are put to strict proof except of course, those specifically admitted herein. The allegations against the O.P.No.3 & 4 are false and baseless. The service providers the role of O.P.No.3 & 4 is limited to the extent of grant of loan and deposit of the crop insurance premium with the concerned insurance company. Such loans are advanced to the loanee through the concerned society/PACS and the said premium collected through the PACS is deposited with the insurance company by the BCC Bank/O.P.No.3 &4. Such premium amount of all the loanee collected through the PACS only issue receipts to those from whom premium is collected and maintains a detail list of the same. So PACS is a necessary party to this case. As such the instant case is not maintainable for non-joinder, mis-joinder of parties. The Jaradaga PACS/Society is within the area of operation of OP.P.No.4. A total amount of Rs.28,19,474/- collected from all PACS under O.P.No.4 towards crop insurance premium Khariff-2017 has been credited to the Head office account (Account of O.P.No.3) by the O.P.No.4 vide BCC Bank ltd. Patrapur Branch advice dated 31.07.2017 accordingly such amount along with the crop insurance premium received from all the other PACS/societies through different/all the Branches of the BCC Bank ltd. Amounting to a total of Rs.28485318.20 as has/have been deposited lump-sum by the Head office of the Bank i.e. O.P.No.3 with the concerned insurance Company (i.e. O.P.No.1)  vide letter No. 2103 dated 04.08.2017 of the O.P.No.3.  The contents of O.P.No.3’s letter dated 28.06.2019 to the complainant are all true. The O.P.No.3 & 4 have no role in connection with declaration of natural calamity or the area affected by such calamity/loss of crop/assessment of loss/grant of insurance compensation etc. The appropriate authority government including the insurance company is to do the needful in the matters. The bank only credits the amount of compensation, if only the same is given by the insurance company, to the concerned loanee beneficiary account. In the instant case the Bank has credited whatever insurance compensation has been given by the insurance company to the concerned account of the loanee. An amount of Rs.5154.33 paisa has been credited to the account of the complainant No.2 in this connection. There is no deficiency in service or negligence in duty or unfair practice or default of any kind on the part of O.P.No.3 & 4. Hence the O.P.No.3 & 4 prayed to dismiss the case with costs in the interest of justice.

            6. On the date of hearing, the learned counsels of both parties submitted their arguments. The Commission heard on the point of issues at length from the parties and verified the complaint, written version, evidence on affidavit, written arguments and documents available in the case record minutely. It is apparent from the case record that the complainant has not impleaded necessary party. The complaint is bad in law is suffering from non-joinder of party. In absence of necessary party the Commission cannot pass any effective order in the instant case. In catena of case, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that, “it could thus be seen that a ‘necessary party’ is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. It has been held that if a necessary party is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. In the instant case also, PACS is a necessary party. The Commission is relying upon Civil Appeal Nos. 5755-5756 of 2011 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Moreshar S/o Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Siraram Bhedi (D) thr. LRS. And others, is not inclined to allow the complaint. Hence, the Commission dismissed the case summarily.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 24.07.2024.