BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 183 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 23.08.2021.
Date of Decision : 29.08.2024.
Vinod Kumar aged about 51 years son of Shri Mani Ram, resident of village Khai Shergarh, 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. H.D.F.C. Bank through its Manager, Branch Panniwala Mota, Near Police Naka, District 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 he alongwith his brother Rajesh is cultivating agricultural land measuring around 28 kanals 02 marlas in the revenue estate of village Kharia, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa and they are having joint Kisan Credit Card account with op no.2 bearing account number 50200025696272. On 21.07.2020, the op no.2 bank deducted premium of Rs.8236.05 from the above account of complainant for insurance of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 with op no.1 and premium amount was deposited by op no.2 with op no.1. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2020 season was damaged and other farmers of village Kharia, District Sirsa, Haryana have received insurance claim against the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 season at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per acre but complainant did not get insurance claim from any of ops and upon his visit to op no.2 it was disclosed that name of village of complainant was wrongly mentioned as Khai Shergarh instead of Kharia in PMFBY portal and due to this he has not received insurance claim of his damaged crop. That complainant again approached the ops and requested to pay insurance claim but they did not pay any heed to his requests and they have caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement submitting therein that land of complainant was shown by op no.2 bank in village Khai Shergarh in the portal and answering op no.1 has considered the coverage details of complainant farmer as uploaded by op no.2 bank in the NCI portal. Since there was shortfall in the actual yield of insured cotton crop of complainant in village Khai Shergarh (22) during Kharif, 2020, season, therefore, area approach claim of Rs.1358.85 is already paid on 23.06.2021 to the complainant and for the loss of cotton crop of complainant in his land in village Kharia, the op no.2 bank only is liable to pay any other claim amount due to 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.8236.05 on 21.07.2020 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. The insurance company has neither informed regarding the discrepancy in the record nor has refunded the amount to the complainant or to the bank. 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. Gagan Pal Singh, Assistant 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 cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 in his land situated in village Kharia 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 cotton crop of village Kharia in Kharif, 2020 was 193.18 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Rania was 591.66 Kgs. per hectare. So, it is proved on record that as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, since the average yield of cotton crop of village Kharia in Kharif, 2020 was less than threshold yield of block, therefore, there was loss to the cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 in village Kharia and complainant is also having his agricultural land in village Kharia. The op no.1 insurance company has taken the plea that as the bank uploaded the name of village of the land of complainant as Khai Shergarh on the portal, therefore, on the basis of loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 in village Khai Shergarh, complainant was paid an amount of Rs.1358.85 by op no.1. The op no.2 bank has not denied the fact that it did not upload the village name of land of complainant as Khai Shergarh and said fact is also proved from the documents Ex.R7 and Ex.R8 i.e. application status uploaded on the portal. Since the complainant is having his land in village Kharia, therefore, he was entitled to insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 as per calculation of claim of village Kharia and due to mistake of op no.2 bank, he has received claim amount for the loss of crop on the basis of village Khai Shergarh. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2020 was Rs.81,545/- per hectare and as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant was entitled to total insurance claim amount of Rs.78,350/- for the loss of his cotton crop in their 28.2 kanals of land. Since the amount of Rs.1358.85/- has been paid by op no.1 insurance company on the basis of record uploaded by op no.2 bank i.e. village name of land of complainant as Khai Shergarh, therefore, it cannot be said there is any fault of op no.1 insurance company and as such op no.1 insurance company has rightly paid above said claim amount on the basis of loss in village Khai Shergarh and op no.2 bank only is liable to pay the remaining claim amount of Rs.77,000/- 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 appeal filed by the bank in the above said case was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission. Since the complainant is main account holder from which premium amount was deducted, therefore, complainant Vinod Kumar is entitled to remaining claim amount of Rs.77,000/- from op no.2 bank.
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.77,000/- 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.77,000/- 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 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.
