Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/188/2020

Sadhu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Agrculutre ins. - Opp.Party(s)

in person

24 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                Complaint Case No. : 188 of 2020

                                                                Date of Institution    : 04.12.2020

                                                                Date of decision:      :  24.09.2024

 

Sadhu Ram son of Sh.Nathu S/o Heera R/o village Sandwa, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.

...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

1. Agriculture Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

 

2. Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank, Pataudi, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

 

...Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. B.S. Boora, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Mukesh Jangra, Advocate for OP No.1.

Sh. P.K.Punia, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.                 Brief facts of this complaint are that complainant in the year 2019 sown cotton crop in two acres in his land situated at village Sungarpur and the crop was insured from OP No.1 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (in short PMFBY)  by paying Rs.1225.60 on 12.07.2019 through KCC account with OP No.2 bank. It is stated that the crop completely damaged due to inundation. It is stated that concerned department surveyed the loss and compensation was provided to the concerned farmers. It is alleged that complainant has been deprived from the compensation as the OP No.2 bank wrongly shown his land in village Sandwa instead of village Sungarpur. It is stated that no claim has been released to the complainant despite various requests to the OPs besides complaint on C.M. Window dated 16.07.2020. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment to him. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the Ops to pay Rs.1.00 lac alongwith interest till its realization. Further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment. Any other relief qua litigation expenses and other charges, to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.              Upon notice, OPs appeared through their respective counsels.

3.              OP No.1 filed written statement submitting that as per details of National Crop Insurance Portal with regard to land and crop sown by complainant was uploaded by the OP No.2 bank and as per the said details, village Sungarpur was never insured with the answering OP for the alleged season rather the crop village was Sandwa 76, so complainant is not entitled to get any claim from the OP insurance company. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.              OP No.2 filed its written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of the complaint, locus standi, complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is admitted that the alleged insurance premium was debited from the bank account of complainant on 12.07.2019 for insurance of cotton crop 2019 under PMFBY and the same was sent to OP No.1. However, it is admitted that due to technical error in portal, the land of complainant was shown in village Sandwa instead of village Sungarpur. It is stated in a meeting held on 02.07.2019 under the Chairmanship of Sh. Ajit Bala Ji Joshi, IAS, Director General, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Haryana, with the bank concerned and it was decided that where the farmer’s record mis-matched and premium paid by banks to the insurance company in time and the insurance company did not return/refund the premium to the banks in time, the insurance company will be liable to pay the claim to farmers as per farmer’s record. As such, denied for any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                 Ld. counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on 24.03.2023.

5.                 On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure RA to Annexure K and closed the evidence on 06.06.2024.

6.                 On behalf of OP No.2, affidavit RW2/A was tendered in evidence and closed the same on 06.06.2024.

7.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                 At the outset, the arguments of learned counsel for OP No.1 is that complainant could not get compensation as the OP bank has mis-reported the area of land of complainant while uploading the data of land and crop on insurance portal. Further, as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, in cases where farmers are denied crop insurance due to incorrect/partial/non-uploading of their details on portal, concerned banks/intermediaries shall be responsible for payment of claims to them. Ld. counsel for OP insurance company in order to strengthen his case has placed reliance on three case laws delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi bearing R.P. No.2673 of 2013 decided on 30.01.2015, R.P. No.4589 of 2013 decided on 11.12.2013 and R.P. No.2143-2148 of 2009 decided on 20.09.2020. We have carefully gone through these judgments.

9.                 On the other side, OP bank has admitted that due to technical error in portal, land of complainant was shown in village Sandwa instead of village Sungarpur, however, it has taken plea that as per Minutes of Meeting held on 02.07.2019, the OP insurance company is only liable to pay the compensation, if any, to the complainant.

10.               After hearing learned counsels for the parties and going through the record, we have observed that the OP bank, admittedly, mis-reported the area of land pertaining to complainant but thereafter, the OP bank has written letter Annexure C-1 to the OP insurance company to rectify such mistake requesting to treat the insurance premium for agriculture land at village Sungarpur. But the OP insurance company has not taken any cognizance of the letter of the OP bank but remained adamant that there is mis-reporting of the land and it is no liable to pay any compensation to complainant. Such act & conduct of OP insurance company amounts to negligent behavior as well as deficiency in service.  It is proved on record that complainant had sown cotton crop in two acres but there is no document on record which could show that as to how much loss occurred to the cotton crop. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has argued that other farmers have also been awarded compensation @ Rs.14,000/- per acre.  In this regard, the counsel has placed on record, a photocopy of passbook and averred that Rs.61,000/- has been received by another farmer for his 4.5 acre land, which had taken on record as Mark-A. Thus the complainant is entitled to Rs.28,000/- for the loss occurred to his cotton crop in two acres.  In view of the above discussion and arguments from both the sides, OP insurance company is held liable to compensate the complainant for his damaged cotton crop. Complainant is also entitled to get compensation on account of mental and physical harassment. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP No.1 insurance company is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To pay Rs.28,000/- (Rs. Twenty eight thousand)) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.

(ii)      And to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand) as compensation  for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OP No.1 insurance company shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party no.1 insurance company may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated:24.09.2024.