BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 218 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 05.10.2020.
Date of Decision : 06.06.2024.
Ramesh Kumar aged 26 years son of Sh. Balbir Singh son of Shri Harlal, resident of village Jogiwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Head Office at Plate B&C, 5th Floor, Block-1, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi- 110023 through its MD/ Authorized Person/ Director.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Branch Office at Opp. Welcome Palace, Barnala Road, Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
3. Bank of India, Begu Road Branch, Begu Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its Manager.
4. District Agriculture Officer, Near Old Tehsil, Court Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 already given up on 24.03.2022.
Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.4.
ORDER:-
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (herein after referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist and is owner in possession of 1/3rd share of total land measuring 104 kanals 17 marlas situated at village Jogiwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa. He has obtained KCC facility from op no.3. That as per crop insurance scheme op no.3 bank got insured his crop from ops no.1 and 2 and deducted premium amount of Rs.2634.89 from the account of complainant bearing no. 676532110000278 on 15.07.2019. The complainant had sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2019 which was totally damaged due to natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught which was also verified by op no.4 and submitted its report other ops. The complainant sustained the losses of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of damages to his insured crop and is entitled for the same and other farmers have already received compensation in this regard. It is further averred that complainant approached to the ops and requested them to pay the amount of compensation but the ops kept on lingering the matter on one false pretext or the other and now about a week ago the ops have refused to pay any such amount to him saying that Narma crop of complainant has never been insured by them and he is not entitled to compensation and on further inquiry op no.3 disclosed that mistakenly they had supplied wrong information in the proposal form sent to op no.1 by op no.3 alongwith the premium and they assured that said mistake would be got rectified by their own and amount of compensation shall be disbursed to him at the earliest. That since then he has been making rounds to the office of ops but they are avoiding the requests of complainant and now about two days ago they have refused to admit his claim and have caused deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops no.1, 3 and 4 appeared. Op no.1 filed written version and submitted that on the basis of farmer ID mentioned in the complaint, it has been found that the NCI portal application of complainant farmer is rejected on the NCI portal. Thus, complainant is not eligible for insurance coverage during the above mentioned season. It is further submitted that complainant farmer’s crops were not insured during Kharif 2019 season of PMFBY scheme and the application on the NCIP Portal were rejected because correct land ID details were not uploaded in the NCIP portal and as per clauses of operational guidelines of PMFBY, the bank is responsible for payment of claim to the complainant and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 was given up by learned counsel for complainant on 24.03.2022.
5. Op no.3 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op deducted a sum of Rs.2634.88 as insurance premium from the KCC account of complainant and as per the guidelines issued by Govt. of India remitted the said insurance premium to insurance company i.e. op no.1. The answering op also uploaded the other details pertaining to the land of complainant as per documents supplied by complainant and also as told by complainant. The cotton crop of complainant was uploaded on the portal. The coverage of risks to the insured crops were/ are subject to relevant terms and conditions of the insurance company and answering op has no role to play therein. The only responsibility of answering op to deduct the amount of insurance premium and to remit the same to insurance company which was duly discharged by answering op. It is further submitted that answering op submitted the relevant papers relating to the land holding of complainant to the insurance company which were supplied by complainant. As per norms of the policy, insurance company after the insurance of the crop of a farmer had to verify the physical data by visiting the spot. So, the existence of standing crop at the spot was to be verified by the insurance company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. Op no.4 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or report of survey of loss of crop is to be prepared by op no.4 and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of op no.4 in this regard. The yield basis claims are settled by insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by op no.4 within specific time period and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.4 made.
7. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.
8. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Jaspal Singh Khurmi, Regional Manager as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R13. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Deepak Goyal, Senior Branch Manager as Ex.R14 and documents Ex.R15 to Ex,R19. OP no.4 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R20 and documents Ex.R21 and Ex.R22.
9. We have heard learned counsel for parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.4 and have gone through the case file.
10. The complainant in order to prove loss to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 has place don file letter/ report of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.C7 in which it is reported that the average yield of cotton crop of village Jogiwala in Kharif, 2019 was 385.04 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block was 572.40 Kgs. per hectare. Since the average yield of village Jogiwala remained less than block, so as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2019. From the statement of account of complainant Ex.C5, it is evident that on 15.07.2019 premium amount of Rs.2634.89 was deducted from the account of complainant by op no.3 for insuring his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 with op no.1 but however said premium amount was refunded back in the account of complainant on 31.12.2019. The op no.1 insurance company has taken the plea that according to the data available on the NCI-portal the application of the complainant was rejected due to incorrect land IDs i.e. land sub division number and land survey number uploaded on the NCI portal by bank branch i.e. op no.3 and op no.1 has refunded the excess premium amount to the bank branch on 03.10.2019 and 22.11.2019 for onward credit to the complainant farmer. In this regard, op no.1 has also placed on file details of the farmer uploaded on the portal by bank as Ex.R10 and application status of complainant uploaded on 22.07.2019 as Ex.R11 and the same reveals that application of complainant uploaded on portal was rejected. In Ex.R10 it is mentioned that farmer was not insured during Kharif 2019 season of the PMFBY scheme and the application on the NCIP portal was rejected because land id details were not uploaded correctly in NCIP portal, therefore, no risk was insured wrt the said farmer during Kharif 19 season. The op no.3 bank has also placed on file list of farmers as Ex.R18 whose applications were rejected by the insurance company. The complainant has also averred that op no.3 disclosed him that mistakenly they had supplied wrong information in the proposal form sent to the op no.1 alongwith premium and assured that said mistake would be got rectified by them at their own but bank has failed to get corrected the said mistake. As per operational guidelines of PMFBY, the bank was liable to uploaded correct data of complainant alongwith his land ID etc. on the portal but due to wrong uploading of data of complainant his application on the portal was rejected on the same day when it was uploaded on the portal. Thereafter the op no.3 bank did not make efforts to uploaded correct data of complainant again on the portal by mentioning land ID of the complainant and did not ask the complainant to supply correct data including land ID if same was not in possession of the bank but bank has failed to do so and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of op no.3 bank due to which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and financial loss. As such op no.3 bank is liable to pay the claim amount for the loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2019. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2019 was Rs.76,600/-. The premium amount of Rs.2634.88 from the account of complainant was deducted for insurance of his crop in 1.7199 hectare of land though same was returned back in his account. So, as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.43,000/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 in his 1.7199 hectare of land and op no.3 bank is liable to pay the said amount to the complainant.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua op no.3 bank and direct the opposite party no.3 bank to pay the claim amount of Rs.43,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.43,000/- from op no.3 bank alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op no.3 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. The complaint qua remaining ops no.1 and 4 stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that if op no.3 bank finds that op no.1 has wrongly rejected the application of complainant despite uploading of correct particulars on portal, then op no.3 will be at liberty to recover the said amounts from op no.1 as per law as same is internal matter of ops no.1 and 3. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President,
Dated: 06.06.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
