Haryana

Ambala

CC/215/2019

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Sharma

20 Jun 2023

ORDER

COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	215 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	16.07.2019
Date of decision	:	20.06.2023

Sukhwinder Singh age about 45 years s/o Sh. Baldev Singh r/o V.P.O Shahpur, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. Allahabad Bank through its Branch Manager Branch V.P.O Shahpur, Ambala Cantt through its Branch Manager.
2. SBI General Insurance Company 1st Floor, Triloki Chambers, above Canara Bank, opposite Municipal Corporation, Ambala Cantt

….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Present:        Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant

                     Shri S.K Mehta, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1

                     Shri R.K. Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

 

Complaint case no.	:	214 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	16.07.2019
Date of decision	:	20.06.2023

Balwinder Singh aged 48 years son of Sh.Shamsher Singh  r/o V.P.O Shahpur, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant

Versus

 

1. Allahabad Bank through its Branch Manager Branch V.P.O Shahpur, Ambala Cantt through its Branch Manager.
2. SBI General Insurance Company 1st Floor, Triloki Chambers, above Canara Bank, opposite Municipal Corporation, Ambala Cantt

….…. Opposite Parties.

Present:        Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                     Shri S.K Mehta, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                     Shri R.K. Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

…………………………………………………………………………………

 Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid two consumer complaints. Since, the issues involved in the above complaints except minor variations here and there of law and fact are the same, therefore, we are of the opinion that these complaints can be disposed of by passing a consolidated order.

2.            The facts are being culled out from CC No.215 of 2019, titled as Sukhwinder Singh Versus Allahabad Bank and another. The facts in brief are that the   complainant is permanent resident of V.P.O Shahpur, Ambala Cantt and is an agriculturist by profession. The complainant and his brother namely Gurjant Singh are having the agriculture land comprised in khewat/khautani no.1493/1812,1813 khasra no. 52//11min (4-0), 51//6/2(3-0), 15/2(5-8), 16/1(0-12), 52//11 min (4-0), 19/2(1-0), 20(8-0) khewat/khautani no. 1938 khasra no. 50//25/1 (0-4), 51//5/2(5- 16), 6/1(3-11), 52//1/2(4-0), 9/2(3-8), 10(8-0), 12/1(5-16), 18(8- 0), 19/1(7-0), 23(8-0), 24/1 (3-12), 27(0-12), khewat/khautani no. 1586/1937 khasra no. 52//26(7-7), situated in village Shahpur Tehsil and Distt. Ambala in equal shares  and land comprised in khewat/khautani no. 76\80 khasra no. 15//5/1(4-8), khewat/khautani no. 60/62 khasra no. 14//11(7-7), 12/1 (0-18), 20(6-14), 15//15/2(1-2), 16/1(0-13), khewat/khautani no. 77/81 khasra no. 14//1/1(0-16), 15/5/2(3-12), khewat/khautani no. 516/577 khasra no. 14//12/2(4-14) situated in village Machoundi Tehsil and Distt. Ambala in equal shares. The complainant and his brother are doing the work of agriculturist to earn their live hood. The complainant has taken the loan of product Rural CC- Akshay Krishi KCC vide account no. 20161742213 with a limit up to Rs.9,07,000/- from OP No.1 and in lieu of that the OP No.1 deducted Rs.3274/- as premium of insurance policy issued by OP No. 2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for his crops. OP No.1 has deducted/took the premium of Rs.3274/- from the account of the complainant on 31-7-2018 and Rs.2,343/- on 15-12-2018. The complainant and his brother sowed the paddy crop in the month of June-July 2018 in their fields, but due to natural disaster the whole paddy crop got damaged. The complainant and his brother reported the matter to the OPs and after assessment the OPs have assessed the damage of paddy crop @ 21,000/- per acre. The OPs after assessing the damage of paddy crops have paid the compensation to the complainant and his brother. The complainant got shocked when he came to know that the OPs had paid only compensation of Rs.14,400.53ps. on 2-5-2019 to the complainant whereas they had paid compensation to his brother of Rs.28,652/- on 29-1-2019 and Rs.96,361.69 on 2-5-2019, total amounting to Rs.1,25,013.69 paisa. The complainant and his brother are having equal agriculture land in village Shahpur and Village Machoundi and the paddy crop of the complainant and his brother was totally damaged due to natural disaster. The complainant immediately contacted the OPs and apprised them that they had paid less compensation, which is not as per actual damage of paddy crop and requested them to pay the compensation of Rs.1,25,013/- and further requested them to pay the remaining compensation of Rs.1,10,613/-. The OPs postponed the mater one pretext or other. The complainant visited the OPs in the second week of June of 2019 and requested them to pay the remaining compensation of Rs.1,10,613/-, but the OPs flatly refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant. Similar, contentions have been raised by the complainant in CC No.214 of 2019. Hence, these complaints have been filed by the complainants seeking following reliefs from the OPs:-  

              In CC No.215 of 2019:-

1. To pay Rs.1,10,613/- as remaining compensation along with the interest @ 18% per annum from 2-5-2019 till its actual realization.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as damages on account of mental agony, harassments, the deficient services and unfair trade practice.
3. To pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.

Or

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

In CC No.214 of 2019:-

1. To pay Rs.58,811/- as remaining compensation along with the interest @ 18% per annum from 2-5-2019 till its actual realization.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as damages on account of mental agony, harassments, the deficient services and unfair trade practice.
3. To pay Rs.21,000/-, as litigation expenses.

Or

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

3.           Upon notice, OP No.1, appeared and filed written version, in both these complaints, wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complainants have not come to the Commission with clean hands; they have  concealed the true and material facts from this Commission; the complaints are bad for non joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits, while admitting the facts regarding deduction of respective premiums from the accounts of the complainants qua the insurance of their paddy crop, it has been stated that the complainants should be directed to submit the details of assessment of damage of crop of paddy and that with whom they submitted their claim and who assessed their claims.  OP No.1 had performed its duties as per the norms and there is no delay on the part of OP No.1, as it timely deposited the premium with the concerned company.  OP No.1 is working properly as per circular of Haryana Government bearing no. 1408-Agri-II(1)-2019/7280 dated 24-05-2019. As per clause no. XXIII" State Government shall notify the concerned weather Data provider / expert Agency whose report methodology would be used in assessing the extent of losses and computations of the claim. Cost of such weather Data shall be borne by the concerned Insurance companies as per the notified monthly rates in other PMFBY implemented states. The Notified AWS and A R G should fulfill meet the standards norms criteria specified by the concerned Authorities from time to time. And in the same circular of the Haryana Government para no. XXIX) is as under:-

"The Insurance co. shall verify the data of insured Farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, Bank account no. (KYC) as provided by the Bank independently on its own costs within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the State Government failing which no objection by the Insurance Co. at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim.

4.           OP No.1 also issued a letter dated 01-08-2019 to the Chief Officer S.B.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd; Sector 35-B, Chandigarh to resolve the matter urgently. OP No.1 is not liable to pay any type of the compensation to the complainants. Rest of the averments of the complainants were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of both the complaints with costs.
5.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections with regard to its maintainability etc. On merits, it has been stated that  these complaints are not tenable as there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2; the  complaints involve complex questions of fact & law that requires production of voluminous evidence, oral as well as documentary and therefore can be decided by Civil Court only; OP No.2 did not erred in offering service to the complainants as such complaints are not maintainable against OP No.2;  since respective amounts, as mentioned by the complainants in their complaints stood received by them, as such,  these complaints are liable to be dismissed on the very same grounds  etc.   On merits, it has been stated that OP No.2 had booked the complainants policy (s) through the data mentioned in the crop portal i.e. Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana official website. All these datas are uploaded on the portal by OP No.1 bank/ intermediaries and the insurance company picks these datas for issuing policy and also for payment in case of crop failure. As per available information on crop portal, OP No.1 booked the complainants policy for paddy crop in village-Salarheri (128) and not in village-Shahpur and in pursuance of the same the OP No.2 has processed the claims. Crop Insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri FasalBimaYojna (PMFBY) which operates on area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as an insurance unit. For all major crops, insurance unit is Gram Panchayat and for minor crops, insurance unit is Taluk. Threshold Yield (TY) Kilogram/Hectare is fixed for every insurance unit. Actual Yield (AY) Kilogram/Hectare of an insurance unit is calculated by the government taking samples from respective insurance unit at the time of harvesting of the crop through Crop Cutting Experiments (CCEs) which are conducted by State Government. All the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claims is furnished by the Government and accordingly the Insurance Company only calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri FasalBima Yojna (PMFBY).  Relevant provision of operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) vide Clause XI:- Assessment of Loss / Shortfall in Yield, sub-clause 10:- Assessment of Claims (Wide Spread Calamities) is as under:-

 

"If 'Actual Yield' (AY) per hectare of insured crop for the insurance unit (calculated on basis of requisite number of CCEs) in insured season, falls short of specified "Threshold Yield' (TY), all insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in yield of similar magnitude. PMFBY seeks to provide coverage against such contingency.

 

'Claim' shall be calculatedas per the following formula:

 

(Threshold Yield-Actual Yield)	X Sum Insured
Threshold Yield

6. In the present case, as the Actual Yield (AY) Kilogram/Hectare was less than Threshold Yield (TY) Kilogram/Hectare for crop: -paddy in Village: - Salarheri and as such, the complainants were paid as per their entitlements under the policies in question.   The negligence and deficiency in services is on the part of OP No.1 Bank and not by OP No.2. Clause XVII. Important Conditions /Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks reads as under:-

• Insurance companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intermediary or directly. Any loss in transit due to negligence by these agencies or non-remittance of premium by these agencies, the concerned bank / intermediaries shall be liable for payment of claims.
• In case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank /branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for suchmis-reporting.
• Mere sanctioning/ disbursement of crop loans and submission of proposals/ declarations and remittance of premium by farmer/ bank, without explicit intent to raise the crop, does not constitute acceptance of risk by insurance company.

 

Rest of the averments of the complainants were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaints with heavy costs.

7.           Learned counsel for the respective complainants tendered affidavits of the complainants as Annexure CW-1 alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-4 (in CC No.215 of 2019) and Annexure CW-1 alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-4 (in CC No.214 of 2019)  and closed the evidence on behalf of the respective complainants. On the other hand, Learned counsel for OP No.1 (in CC No.215 of 2019) tendered affidavit of Deepak Kumar, Senior Branch Manager, Indian Bank Shahpur Branch, Ambala Cantt. District Ambala as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1/1 to OP-1/2 and in CC No.214 of 2019 also affidavit of Deepak Kumar, Senior Branch Manager, Indian Bank Shahpur Branch, Ambala Cantt., District Ambala as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1/1 to OP-1/2 of and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.1 respectively. Learned counsel for OP No.2 in CC No.215 of 2019 tendered affidavit of Nishant Gera, Assistant Manager-Consumer Litigation of OP No.2-SBI General Insurance Company Limited as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-2/1 to OP-2/7 and in CC No.214 of 2019 affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai, Deputy Manager-Consumer Litigation of OP No.2-SBI General Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi, Authorized Signatory as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-2/1 to OP-2/6 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.2 respectively.
8.            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
9.           Learned counsel for the complainants in both these complaints submitted that by paying lesser claim to the complainants for the loss suffered to their paddy in their village Shahpur as compared to the other similar located persons/farmers of the same village with same area of the cultivation land, the OPs are deficient in providing service and indulged into unfair trade practice.
10.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 submitted that OP No.1 has no concern whatsoever with the lesser amount of compensation awarded to the complainants for the loss suffered by them on account of their damaged paddy crops. He further submitted that OP No.1 had also written letter to OP No.2 to compensate the complainants as per the similar located farmers of the same village but it failed to do so.
11. Learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that the claim was processed and paid to the complainants as per the details uploaded by OP No.1 on the web crop portal. He further submitted that it was the negligence and deficiency in services of OP No.1 Bank as it wrongly uploaded the name of village of the complainants as Salaheri instead of Shahpur, on web crop portal and as such, it is OP No.1 which shall compensate the complainants and not OP No.2.
12. From the perusal of Jamabandi, Annexure C-1 (in CC No.215 of 2019) and also Annexure C-1 (in CC No.214 of 2019), it is evident that the agriculture land of the complainants is situated in Village Shahpur, H.B. No.125, Ambala respectively. From the  insurance acknowledgment receipts, Annexure OP-2/1 in CC No.215 of 2019)  and Annexure OP-1/1 in CC No.214 of 2019) issued by OP No.2-Insurance Company itself, it is apparent that the paddy crop for the Kharif Season 2018, sown by the complainants i.e. 2.2275 Ha. in CC No.215 of 2019 and 1.377 Ha. in CC No.214 of 2019 and  was duly insured with OP No.2-Insurance company for the sum assured of Rs.1,63,721.25 and Rs.1,01,209.50 respectively. In these said documents, name of the village has been mentioned as Shahpur, H.B. No.125. Thus, it can very well be said that the OP No-2 was very well in the knowledge that the insured paddy crop of both the complainants fell within the village Shahpur (125). Under these circumstances, irrespective of the fact that vide document dated 13.08.2018 i.e. the application status, Annexure OP-2/2 (in CC No.215 of 2019) which has been created by the Bank-OP No.1 the name of the village of the complainant (in CC No.215 of 2019) has been mentioned as Salarheri (128), yet, the same stood automatically rectified by OP No.2, when the correct name of villages stood mentioned in the insurance policies referred to above. Under these circumstances, it can very well be said that it was OP No.2 who is negligent and deficient in providing service by making compensation to the complainants, qua damaged paddy crop of some other village i.e. against the village insured and mentioned in the insurance policies referred to above. OP No.2 is therefore held liable to pay the differential amount(s) if any, to the complainants in both these complaints, after calculating the percentage of actual loss suffered by them for the damaged paddy crop in respect of Village Shahpur i.e. the village as mentioned in the insurance policies. 
13.           Since OP No.2, being insurer is liable to compensate the complainants for the loss suffered by them and not by the Bank i.e OP No.1, therefore, both the complaints filed by the complainants against the OP No.1, are liable to be dismissed.
14.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaints against OP No.1 and allow the same against OP No.2-Insurance Company and direct it, in both the complaints as under:-

CC No.215 of 2019-Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Allahabad Bank & Another

1. To pay to the respective complainants, the respective differential amounts of claim, if any, after calculating the same, by taking into account the actual losses suffered by them qua their paddy in their village Shahpur, H.B. No.125 alongwith interest @5% p.a. from the date of filing of these complaints, till its realization, after deducting the amounts already paid to the complainants.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

The OP No.2 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules.

          CC No.214 of 2019-Balwinder Singh Vs. Allahabad Bank &Another

1. To pay to the respective complainants, the respective differential amounts of claim, if any, after calculating the same, by taking into account the actual losses suffered by them qua their paddy in their village Shahpur, H.B. No.125 alongwith interest @ 5% p.a. from the date of filing of these complaints, till its realization, after deducting the amounts already paid to the complainants.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

The OP No.2 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules.

Certified copy of this order be placed in the connected file. Files be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 20.06.2023.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President