BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 135 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 19.07.2021.
Date of Decision : 09.08.2024.
Bhim Sain aged about 44 years son of Shri Bhagwan Dass, resident of village Talwara Khurd, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Agriculture Insurance Company, Plate B&C, 5th Floor, Office Block 1, East Kidwai Nagar, Opp. AIIMS Gate 2, New Delhi- 110023.
2. State Bank of India through its Manager, Branch Ellenabad, District Sirsa, Haryana.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Parveen Godara, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Vinay Gandhi, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
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 cultivating agricultural land measuring around 39 kanals 11 marlas being 1/2 share in village Talwara Khurd, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa ( as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) and he is having Kisan Credit Card account with op no.2 bearing number 30600999039. That as per crop insurance scheme of Government of India, the op no.2 bank deducted insurance premium amount of Rs.4951/- on 30.07.2020 from the account of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif 2020 with op no.1. That cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2020 season was damaged and loss report in this regard was prepared by Department of Agriculture, Haryana and claim amount of Rs.7000/- per acre was given to the farmers of village Talwara Khurd, but complainant did not receive any claim amount from any of ops. It is further averred that thereafter he came to know from op no.2 that name of his village was wrongly mentioned as Poharka instead of Talwara Khurd in PMFBY portal and due to this he has not received insurance claim of damaged crop. The complainant approached the ops and requested to pay claim amount but ops did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of complainant and caused deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to him. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version and submitted that as per NCI portal coverage the crop of complainant in village Talwara Khurd was not insured with the answering op during above mentioned season, whereas cotton crop of complainant in village Phorka (Pohrankan) (109) Block Ellenabad is insured on the NCI portal, therefore, complainant is not entitled to any claim for crop in village Jodhna from op no.1 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna during Kharif 2020 season and only op no.2 bank is responsible for the said mistake as per operational guidelines of PMFBY. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant farmer had told the name of his village as Poharka and accordingly the op bank had filled up necessary papers and sent the same to insurance company alongwith premium etc. which has not been refunded back by op no.1. The dispute if any is in between complainant and op no.1. It is further submitted that it is wrong and denied that name of village was written as Poharka instead of Talwara Khurd due to mistake on the part of bank. In the affidavit of complainant which is duly signed by him and attested from Executive Magistrate, Ellenabad, name of village has been mentioned as Poharkan instead of Talwara Khurd. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Jaspal Singh Khurmi, Regional Manager as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R10. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Suresh Kumar, Chief Manager as Ex.R11 and documents Ex.R12 to Ex.R16.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. The complainant is claiming insurance claim amount for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 in his agricultural land situated in village Talwara Khurd, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa. The complainant has also placed on file certificate given by op no.2 as Ex.C1 in which the bank admitted that crop insurance was done for the land situated in village Talwara, but wrongly village Poharka was mentioned in the portal whereas op no.2 bank has also placed on file an affidavit dated 21.11.2019 allegedly of complainant Bhim Sain to prove the fact that at the time of taking crop loan from bank, the complainant himself declared that he is having his agricultural land in village Poharkan. However, the above said certificate Ex.C1 dated 05.07.2021 is also of the op no.2 bank whereby it has admitted its mistake, and as such op no.2 bank can be held liable for the said mistake, if any loss is caused to the crops of complainant in his land situated in village Talwara Khurd because it is proved from copy of jamabandi Ex.C3 that complainant is having his agricultural land in village Talwara Khurd. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has placed on file wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during Kharif, 2020 prepared by Agriculture department, Sirsa according to which the average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 in village Talwara Khurd was 485.62 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Ellenabad was 574.02 Kgs. per hectare. Since the average yield of cotton crop of village Talwara Khurd in Kharif, 2020 was less than threshold yield of cotton crop of block Ellenabad, therefore, as per operational guidelines of PMFBY there was loss to the cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 in village Talwara Khurd. So, it is not proved on record that there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2020. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2020 was Rs.81,545/- per hectare as is evident from Annexure A regarding sum insured, premium and subsidy placed on record by op no.1. So, as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.24,850/- for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 in his 39 kanals 11 marlas of land. The op no.2 bank only is liable to pay the said claim to the complainant as it wrongly uploaded the details of complainant on portal and as such op no.1 insurance company is not liable to pay any claim amount to the complainant. In this regard Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula in the latest judgment in case titled as The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank now merged with Union Bank of India Versus Rupinder Singh and others Appeal No. 803 of 2022 decided on 11.01.2023 has held that “As per provision 17.2 of operational guidelines of PMFBY for difference of claim due to wrong information, if any, concerned bank/ intermediaries were responsible”. The Clause 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY stipulates that 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 (if any). The appeal filed by the bank in the above said case was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against op no.2 bank and direct the op no.2 bank to pay the claim amount of Rs.24,850/- 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.24,850/- from op no.2 bank alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op no.2 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. However, complaint qua op no.1 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President,
Dated: 09.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
