BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 216 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 05.10.2020.
Date of Decision : 06.06.2024.
Sarswati Devi aged 50 years wife 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.
...…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 parties no.1 and 2.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, 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 she 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. She has obtained KCC facility from op no.3. That as per crop insurance scheme op no.3 bank got insured her crop from ops no.1 and 2 and deducted premium amount of Rs.2634.89 from the account of complainant bearing no. 676532110000279 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 to other ops. The complainant sustained the losses of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of damages to her 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 her saying that Narma crop of complainant has never been insured by them and she 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 her at the earliest. That since then she 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 her claim and have caused deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Ops no.1 and 2 filed written version and submitted that on the basis of farmer ID mentioned in the complaint, the insurance coverage details of complainant farmer are found to be rejected on NCI portal for Kharif 2019 season under PMFBY. Hence, his crop insurance coverage is denied. It is further submitted that complainant is not a consumer of ops no.1 and 2 as the details of the complainant were not uploaded at the NCIP which is mandatory for availing the crop insurance as per PMFBY. Thus, no claim is payable to the complainant farmer for above mentioned season. It is further submitted that land survey number and land sub division number Jogiwala has been uploaded on NCI –portal by the bank/ op no.3 as Jogiwala which is incorrect, therefore, insurance coverage for the crop of complainant farmer on the NCIP portal was rejected and no risk was insured wrt the said farmer/ complainant during Kharif 2019 season, hence complainant was not insured during the Kharif 2019 season of PMFBY scheme and not eligible for any claims and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua ops no.1 and 2 made.
4. Op no.3 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that on the asking of complainant the answering op has got insured the declared Kharif 2019 crops of complainant with op no.1. Accordingly, the answering op has deducted a sum of Rs.2634.89 on account of insurance premium from the loan account of complainant and transferred the same to op no.1 for the insurance of Kharif 2019 declared crops of complainant. It is further submitted that answering op has sent about 300 proposal of different farmers including the complainant alongwith amount of premium and complete data to op no.1 for the insurance of their crops but op no.1 has refunded the amount of insurance premium of about 100 farmers to the answering op on 31.12.2019 without explaining any reason and rhyme. Accordingly answering op has credited the same to the account of respective farmers. The amount of Rs.2634.88 has also been credited to the account of complainant on 31.12.2019. It is further submitted that as per crop insurance scheme, the answering op has uploaded the complete data of respective farmers over the portal of the insurance company. The ops no.1 and 2 have to indemnify the loss of the crops of complainant if any because the answering op has got insured the crops of complainant. The answering op has not charged any penny for itself on account of any insurance hence there has been no liability of answering op to pay any compensation to the complainant on account of any loss to the crops of complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
5. 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.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9.
7. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Bajrang Sharma, Branch Manager as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4. Op no.4 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R5 and documents Ex.R6 and Ex.R7. Ops no.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Jaspal Singh Khurmi, Regional Manager as Ex.R8 and documents Ex.R9 to Ex.R19.
8. 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.
9. The complainant in order to prove loss to her cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 has placed on file letter/ report of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.C8 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 ops no.1 and 2 but however said premium amount was refunded back in the account of complainant on 31.12.2019. The ops no.1 and 2 insurance company have 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 ops no.1 and 2 have 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, ops no.1 and 2 have also placed on file details of the farmer uploaded on the portal by bank as Ex.R17 and application status of complainant uploaded on 24.07.2019 as Ex.R18 and the same reveals that application of complainant uploaded on portal was rejected. In Ex.R17 it is mentioned that application rejected on NCIP due to invalid land survey number and land sub division number uploaded on NCIP, thus not insured under the scheme and not eligible for any claims. The complainant has also averred that op no.3 disclosed her 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 upload correct data of complainant alongwith her land ID etc. on the portal but due to wrong uploading of data of complainant her 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 upload 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 her crop in 1.7199 hectare of land though same was returned back in her 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 her cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 in her 1.7199 hectare of land and op no.3 bank is liable to pay the said amount to the complainant.
10. 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, 2 and 4 stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that if op no.3 bank finds that ops no.1 and 2 have 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 ops no.1 and 2 as per law as same is internal matter of ops no.1 to 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.
