BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 12 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 29.01.2021.
Date of Decision : 09.01.2023.
Daulat Ram son of Shri Ram, resident of village Gudia Khera, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Agriculture Insurance Company, Cabin No. 07, 3rd Floor, Agro Mall, Sector 20, Panchkula- 134117.
2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Madhosinghana, Distt. Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Rakesh Babbar, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist having land measuring 05 acres in which in Kharif, 2019 he had sown cotton crop and as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for insurance of the said crop he had paid premium amount from his account No. 34057175144 maintained with op no.2. It is further averred that the above said cotton crop of complainant was damaged due to disease and rain and as such he could not recover the expenses spent on sowing the crop, therefore, as per rules, he is entitled to receive the claim amount of damaged crop. That complainant approached to the ops and requested them to pay the claim amount but to no effect. The other farmers of his village whose crops were damaged have already received claim amount. It is further averred that when complainant inquired about the reason of non receiving of claim amount from the bank, then the officials of the bank disclosed that at the time of deduction of premium amount, his land was shown in village Bakrianwali and in village Bakrianwali no loss of crop has been reported, so he has not been paid claim amount. It is further averred that in fact complainant is having land in village Gudiakhera and loss of crop has been reported in this village and other farmers have already received claim amount of Rs.20,000/- per acre and complainant is also entitled to receive claim amount at same rate but due to mistake of insurance company, he has not received claim amount. It is further averred that on 25.11.2020 complainant also lodged his complaint at C.M. Window and he has been advised to file a consumer complaint. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per NCI portal coverage, the crop of complainant in the village Gudia Khera was never insured with the answering op during the above mentioned season whereas cotton crop of complainant in village Bakarianwali (40) Block Nathusari Chopta & District Sirsa is insured on the NCI portal. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any claim for crop of the village Gudia Khera under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) during Kharif 2019 season. It is further submitted that as per para 2.11 & 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the banks are required to upload their individual farmers’ coverage details like crops, crop villages, area insured etc. in National Crop Insurance Portal and these details entered/ uploaded in the NCI portal are the only basis of insurance coverage. The eligible claims are also settled on the basis of coverage details like crops, crop villages, area insured etc. uploaded in national portal. It is further submitted that mere deduction of premium money from the bank account does not entitles the complainant farmer for payment of claims, as the claims are strictly paid as per the PMFBY scheme provisions. It is further submitted that answering op has not received any intimation for the loss of the insured crop of complainant during Kharif, 2019 season. Thus, no localized claim is payable to the complainant farmer. There is no shortfall recorded in the actual yield of insured cotton crop in the notified area Bakarianwali (40 Block Nathusari Chopta, Sirsa, so no area approach claim is payable to the complainant farmer. Thus, complainant is not entitled for any claim as per PMFBY scheme. It is further submitted that as in this case bank has uploaded incorrect crop village at the NCIP, only the bank branch can be held liable for the compensation to the complainant as per provisions of the scheme and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 filed reply submitting therein that insurance premium amount has been deducted from the account of complainant as per legal norms and same has been deposited with op no.1 within statutory period i.e. on 31.07.2019 in gross amount of total collected premium amount by way of NEFT. The complainant is entitled for compensation from op no.1 who has received premium amount of complainant. It is also submitted that on portal due to clerical omission the village of complainant was shown to be Bakrianwali, Tehsil Sirsa instead of village Gudiakhera, Tehsil Sirsa whereas complainant is resident of village Gudiakhera and said clerical error is no ground to deny compensation as op no.1 has not returned the premium amount within time and in such type of disputes DG Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Haryana has issued guidelines vide its meeting dated 2.7.2019. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 prayed for.
5. Complainant has tendered detail of farmer uploaded on portal by bank Ex.C1, copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C2, copy of pass book Ex.C3 and Ex.C4.
6. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Gourav Beniwal, Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/A, transaction made through NEFT Ex./ Annexure R1 and relevant page of minutes of meeting held on 2.7.2019 Ex. / Annexure R2.
7. OP no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Jaspal Singh Khurmi, Regional Manager Ex. R3, letter dated 25.4.2018 of Government of india Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare Ex.R4, copy of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R5, copy of letter dated 257.05.2019 Ex.R6, copy of Haryana Govt. notification dated 24.05.2019 Ex.R7, copy of letter dated 19.06.2019 of the Director General Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Krishi Bhawan, Panchkula written to the Deputy Director of Agriculture Kaithal, Panchkula and Rewari Ex.R8, portal details Ex.R9, Ex.R10, letter regarding village wise actual yield Ex.R11, letter regarding threshold yield Ex.R12,
8. We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 and have perused the case file carefully.
9. It is an undisputed fact between the parties that on 11.07.2019 an amount of Rs.2895/- was debited from the KCC (loan) account of complainant by op no.2 as premium for paying the same to op no.1 insurance company for insuring the Kharif crop of complainant of 2019 as per scheme of the Central Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna as crops of loanee farmers were to be insured under the above said scheme. According to op no.2, said premium amount debited from account of complainant was remitted to op no.1 insurance company. According to complainant, his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 in 5 acres of land in village Gudia Khera, District Sirsa was damaged but he has not been paid any compensation by ops whereas other insured farmers of village Gudia Khera have already received compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre and as such, he is entitled to claim amount at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre from ops. It is the case of complainant that since his land has been wrongly shown in village Bakrianwali on crop insurance portal, so no compensation for the damage of his crop was given whereas complainant being farmer of village Gudia Khera suffered loss of his cotton crop and as such he is entitled to above said amount from ops. The complainant in order to prove that he is having above said land in village Gudia Khera has also placed on file copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C2 which reveals that he is having agricultural land in village Gudia Khera District Sirsa. The ops have not denied the fact that there was no loss of cotton crop in village Gudia Khera and that other farmers of village Gudia Khera have not received any claim amount for the loss of their cotton crop in village Gudia Khera and ops have also not led any evidence in this regard to prove these facts. So, the complainant is also entitled to claim amount for the loss of his cotton crop in his land situated in village Gudia Khera District Sirsa.
10. Now the question arises for consideration that from whom the complainant is entitled for claim amount for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 and to what amount? The op no.1 insurance company has not denied the fact that it did not receive any premium amount of Rs.2895/- for insuring cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 of complainant and defence plea of op no.1 insurance company is that since wrong name of village of complainant was uploaded on the Insurance Portal by op no.2 bank, therefore, complainant is not entitled to any insurance claim from op no.1. However, as the op no.1 has retained premium amount for insuring the crop of complainant, therefore, op no.1 is liable to pay claim amount to the complainant for the damage of his cotton crop in his above said land situated in village Gudia Khera, District Sirsa. In so far as wrong up-dation of village name of complainant on Insurance Portal by op no.2 bank is concerned, though it is proved on record that due to mistake on the part of officials of op no.2 bank village name of complainant was shown as Bakrianwali instead of Gudia KLhera but it was also bounden duty of op no.1 insurance company which was receiving premium amount to verify the data of insured farmers as per operational guidelines of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. In this regard, to implement the above said scheme of Central Government during Kharif, 2019 and Rabi 2019-2020, Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department also published notification dated 24.5.2019 which is relied upon by op no.1 insurance company itself as Ex.R7, the relevant clause of which is reproduced as under:-
Clause 16 (xxix)- The Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cut off date and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the Insurance Company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim.
11. In view of above said clause of Haryana Government notification, it was also duty of the insurance company to verify the data of insured farmers at its own but in the present case it is not proved on record that op no.1 insurance company after receiving premium amount from the op no.2 bank on behalf of complainant ever verified the data of insured farmers. The op no.1 insurance company also did not raise any objection regarding uploading of wrong name of village of complainant at any point of time. Moreover, op no.2 bank has also relied upon relevant page of the Minutes of the meeting held on 02.07.2019 under the Chairmanship of Sh. Ajit Bala Ji Joshi, IAS Director General Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Haryana (Ex. Annexure R2) in which it was resolved that Cases where farmers record mismatch and premium paid by banks to insurance company on time, whereas insurance company not returned premium to bank in time, insurance company will pay the claim to farmers as per farmer record. So, the complainant is entitled to claim amount from op no.1 insurance company. The complainant has claimed claim amount of Rs.20,000/- per acre for the damage of his cotton crop in 05 acres of land. However, as per jamabandi Ex.C2, he is having agricultural land measuring 37 kanals 10 marlas i.e. less than five acres of land and the bank has also shown his area as 1.89 hectare on the insurance portal i.e. 4.67 acres of agricultural land. Though complainant claims insurance claim at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre, but however, in such cases, we have already given compensation at the rate of Rs.16,500/- per acre to other farmers of this area. Therefore, complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.77,055/- (Rs.16,500 X 4.67) as insurance claim amount from op no.1 insurance company. At the same time, complainant is also entitled for compensation for harassment including litigation expenses from op no.2 bank for the mistake regarding uploading of wrong name of village of complainant.
12. In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed against opposite parties no.1 and 2. OP No.1 insurance company is directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.77,055/- (in round figure Rs.77,000/-) to the complainant whereas op no.2 bank is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the opposite parties no.1 and 2 are liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they will be liable to pay interest @6% on their respective payable amounts to the complainant from the date this order till actual realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President
Dt. 09.01.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
