BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 151 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 09.08.2021.
Date of Decision : 29.08.2024.
Sulender Kumar aged about 29 years son of Shri Bharat Singh, resident of village Rupawas, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, 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. Punjab National Bank through its Manager, Branch Shah Satnam Ji Nagar, Sirsa, Haryana.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Parveen Godara, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, 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 the complainant is that complainant is a farmer by profession and is cultivating around 13 acres of land ( as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) situated in village Rupawas, District Sirsa and he is having Kisan Credit Card account with op no.2 bearing account number 09895111004846. That as per crop insurance scheme, the complainant got insured the crop of pearl millet of Kharif, 2020 season in around 10 acres of land for which op no.2 deducted premium of Rs.3162.88 on 31.07.2020 from the account of complainant and deposited the same with op no.1. It is further averred that said pearl millet crop of complainant of Kharif, 2020 season was damaged and loss report was prepared by op no.1 alongwith department of Agriculture, Haryana and as per loss report, insurance claim of Rs.3600/- per acre was given to the farmers of village Rupawas, District Sirsa but due to negligence of ops at the time of insurance of his crop name of village was wrongly recorded as village Jasania instead of Rupawas and as a result of which complainant has not received insurance claim. That complainant approached the ops and requested to pay insurance claim amount but they did not pay any heed to the same and have caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service towards complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement submitting therein that crop of pearl millet (bajra) of complainant was shown by op no.2 bank in village Jasania (9) block Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa during Kharif, 2020 season and accordingly answering op no.1 has considered the coverage details of complainant farmer as uploaded by op no.2 bank in the NCI portal. As there was no shortfall in the actual yield of insured pearl millet crop in village Jasania, therefore, no area approach claim is payable to the complainant and op no.2 bank is responsible for the above said mistake as per operational guidelines of PMFBY. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 prayed for.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version submitting therein that bank has debited the amount of Rs.3162.88 on 31.07.2020 from the account of complainant 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. It is further submitted that as per clause 18 (xxi) of the Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department 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. 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. Geddam Gandhi Raju, Regional Manager as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R10. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Arun Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex. RW2/A and statement of account Ex. RW2/1.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. The complainant in order to prove loss to his pearl millet (Bajra) crop of Kharif, 2020 in his land situated in village Rupawas has placed on file report/ letter of the Deputy Director, Agriculture department, Sirsa as Ex.C4 in which it is reported that average yield of Bajra crop of village Rupawas in Kharif, 2020 was 1421.98 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta was 1830.60 Kgs. per hectare. So, it is proved on record that as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, since the average yield of Bajra crop of village Rupawas in Kharif, 2020 was less than threshold yield of block, therefore, there was loss to the Bajra crop of Kharif, 2020 in village Rupawas and complainant is also having his agricultural land in village Rupawas. The op no.1 insurance company in order to prove its plea that op no.2 bank has wrongly uploaded the village name of land of complainant as Jasania instead of Rupawas has placed on file documents Ex.R7 and Ex.R8 i.e. application status of portal from which said plea is duly proved and as there was no shortfall of Bajra crop in village Jasania, therefore, op no.1 insurance company did not pay any claim to the complainant and as such op no.2 bank only is responsible to pay claim amount for the loss of Bajra crop of complainant of Kharif, 2020. The sum insured amount of Bajra crop in Kharif, 2020 was Rs.39,536/- per hectare as is evident from Haryana Govt. notification dated 15.07.2020 Ex.R6. So, as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.35,300/- for the loss of his Bajra crop of Kharif, 2020 in his four hectares of land for which premium was deducted from his account as is evident from document Ex.R7. The op no.2 bank only is liable to pay the said claim amount to the complainant due to above said mistake. 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 qua opposite party no.2 bank and direct op no.2 to pay the claim amount of Rs.35,300/- 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.35,300/- 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 complainant within above stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.1 insurance company stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President,
Dated:29.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
