BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 302 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 25.10.2021.
Date of Decision : 30.08.2024.
1. Gautam Prasad aged about 36 years son of Shri Chhotu Ram, (Mobile No. 70155- 69123).
2. Chhotu Ram aged about 61 years son of Shri Aidan, (Mobile No. 99912-36600), both residents of village Rampura Dhillon, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
1. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited Regional Office, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.
2. HDFC Bank Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director of Agriculture Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Vijay Bansal, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Smt. Kiran Rani, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of the complainants is that they are agriculturists having land in village Rampura Dhillon, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa. The complainant no.1 is owner in possession of land measuring 69 kanals 14 marlas whereas complainant no.2 is owner in possession of land measuring 33 kanals 13 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 and they had sown cotton crop during Kharif, 2020 season in their above said land. That complainants have joint account with op no.2 bearing account no. 50200016391221 which was opened on 23.12.2015 and they had taken loan from op no.2. It is further averred that as per crop insurance scheme, the op no.2 debited a sum of Rs.21,935.61 from the joint account of complainants and credited the same to op no.1 on 31.07.2020 for insurance of their crop of Kharif, 2020 in land measuring 5.3 hectares and as such their cotton crop was got insured by op no.2 with op no.1. That said cotton crop of 2020 sown by complainants in their agricultural land measuring 5.3 hectares was damaged due to climate conditions and op no.3 got surveyed the agricultural fields of Rampura Dhillon and submitted its report to the ops no.1 and 2 and op no.1 thereafter settled the claims of the farmers of said village but very strangely declined the complainants and few other farmers to pay insurance claim. It is further averred that due to negligence and deficiency in service, the ops mentioned the name of village of complainants as Rampura (Dabwali) instead of Rampura Dhillon, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa in the record as a result of which ops credited only amount of Rs.5006.03 in the account of complainants for the damage to their crop in village Rampura (Dabwali) and their every efforts to get claim have gone in vain and as such ops have caused deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to the complainants. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version submitting therein that as per NCI portal coverage the cotton crop of complainants in village Rampura Dhillon, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, Sirsa was not insured with the answering op during the above mentioned season, whereas cotton crops of complainants in village Rampura (324) Block Odhan, Sirsa is insured on the NCI portal and this op has already settled claims i.e. paid claim amount of Rs.5006.03 with regard to insured cotton crops as per NCIP coverage. Therefore, complainants are not entitled to any claim for the cotton crops in village Rampura Dhillon, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, Sirsa from insurance company and as per clauses of operational guidelines of PMFBY, only bank is responsible for the above said mistake. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version submitting therein that bank has debited the amount of Rs.21,935.61 on 31.07.2020 from the account of complainants and has credited the same to the account of op no.1 as premium of insurance, which has never been refunded back. All the information required by op no.1 was sent to the insurance company as per rules and there is no deficiency of service on the part of answering op. It is further submitted that as per clause 18 (xxi) of Haryana Government notification dated 15.07.2020, the insurance company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of 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. The insurance company has neither informed regarding the discrepancy in the record nor has refunded the amount to the complainants or to the bank. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.3 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.3 and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of op no.3 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.3 within specific time period and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. The complainants in evidence have tendered affidavit of Gautam Kumar complainant as Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14.
7. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Geddam Gandhi Raju Regional Manager as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/11. OP no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Gagan Pal Singh, Deputy Manager as Ex. RW2/A and document i.e. statement of account Ex. RW2/1. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex. RW3/A and document Ex. R3/1.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and Smt. Kiran, SA for op no.3 and have gone through the case file.
9. The op no.1 insurance company in order to prove that op no.2 bank while uploading the data of complainants on the insurance portal shown the land of complainants in village Rampura (324) i.e. in block Odhan has placed on file documents Ex.R1/6 and application status Ex.R1/7 and Ex.R1/8 which proves the plea of op no.1 insurance company that op no.1 bank has wrongly shown the land of complainants in village Rampura (324) i.e. in block Odhan because as per village wise tabulation sheet of agriculture department placed on file by op no.1 alongwith letter Ex.R1/10, the village Rampura having Hadbast No. 324 is in block Odhan whereas complainants are having their land in village Rampura Dhillon block Nathusari Chopta. So, it is duly proved on record that op no.2 bank has wrongly shown the land of complainants in village Rampura (324) block Odhan instead of Rampura Dhillon and as such op no.1 on the basis of damage of cotton crop in village Rampura (324) has paid insurance claim amount of Rs.5006.03 to the complainants and there is no other liability of op no.1 to pay any other claim amount to the complainants.
10. Now we come to the loss of cotton crop of complainants in their land situated in village Rampura Dhillon. In this regard complainants have placed on file letter/ report of Deputy Director of Agriculture department, Sirsa as Ex.C11 according to which the average yield of cotton crop in village Rampura Dhillon in Kharif, 2020 was 382.38 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta was 541.62 Kgs. per hectare and as such as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss to the cotton crop of complainants in Kharif, 2020. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in year 2020 was Rs.81,545/- per hectare as is evident from Haryana Govt. notification dated 15.07.2020 Ex.R1/5. So, as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainants are entitled to total insurance claim amount of Rs.1,27,000/- for the loss of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 in their 5.3 hectares of land and after deducting already paid amount of Rs.5006.03 by op no.1, the complainants are entitled to remaining claim amount of Rs.1,22,000/- from op no.2 bank. 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 and there is nothing to prove that said decision of Hon’ble State Commission has been set aside by any appellate authorities. The contention of op no.2 bank taken in the affidavit Ex.RW2/A that in the above said appeal before Hon’ble State Commission, the bank had not pleaded about above siad clause of Haryana Govt. notification has no substance and is irrelevant before this Commission and cannot be looked into by this Commission. So, the op no.2 bank is liable to pay the remaining claim amount of Rs.1,22,000/- to the complainants for the loss of their cotton crop in kharif, 2020 in village Rampura Dhillon, block Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.2 bank and direct op no.2 to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,22,000/- to the complainants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainants will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.1,22,000/- from op no.2 bank alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. 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 complainants within above stipulated period. However, complaint qua remaining ops no.1 and 3 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: 30.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
