BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 569 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 24.09.2019.
Date of Decision : 27.03.2024.
- Gulab Singh son of Sh. Baldev Singh, 2. Labh Singh son of Shri Mahinder Singh, residents of village Rohan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank Limited, through its Manager, Opposite Civil Hospital, Main Road, Rori, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Plot No. 149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh- 160002.
3. District Agriculture Officer, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. B.L. Narula, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. Ravinder Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.
ORDER:-
The complainants have filed the present joint 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). Initially the complainants impleaded Axis Bank as op no.1 and thereafter filed amended title impleading HDFC Bank as op no.1 and deleting Axis Bank.
2. In brief, the case of the complainants is that they are agriculturists and are owners in possession of agricultural land measuring 05 acres 06 kanals situated in village Rohan, District Sirsa and their whole family depends upon agricultural income. The complainants are having their kisan credit card account bearing no. 50200019400311 with op no.1 and have availed loan facility from op no.1. That as per norms of the crop insurance scheme of the Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna, the due premium of the insurance was deductible from the account of complainants for the year Kharif, 2017 which includes the coverage of risk of crop for the Rabi crop and Kharif crop 2017 as the premium for Kharif, 2017 was also deducted from the account of complainants but the ops out of their mischievous whims shown non deduction of the premium amount for Kharif, 2017 without any explanation when the amount is automatically deducted by ops from the account of complainant and the amount of premium was also deducted for Kharif, 2017. It is further averred that whole cotton crop of complainants in Kharif, 2017 was damaged due to attack of rainy flood/ natural calamity and as such complainants are entitled to claim amount at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre but none of the ops have paid any claim amount to the complainants and none of the ops have redressed their grievances despite their several requests, visits and despite legal notice and have caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service to the complainants. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. OP no.1 HDFC Bank filed written version raising preliminary objections that as per clause 6.3.1 of revised operational guidelines of PMFBY, the aadhar card had been made mandatory for availing crop insurance from Kharif, 2017 season onward. The one of the officials of ICICI Lombard, Shri Deepak Gupta also informed the answering op in clarification that as per newly issued communication from Ministry of Agriculture Farmer Welfare, aadhar card was mandatory for enrolment for all the farmers. The complainant was not having aadhar card and had not submitted the same inspite of repeated requests made by the bank. It is further submitted that in the crop year 2017-2018, complainants alongwith the office bearer of Kisan Union visited the bank premises and shown their grievances regarding the transfer of amount for insurance of the crops in the account of the farmers as they had not authorized the bank to get their crop insured. They had started agitation in front of bank branch and also in the Tehsil office with the plea that at the time of sanction of loan, the complainant had executed a declaration and undertaking that “As per your bank policy crop insurance is a pre-condition. However, I am not interested in incurring expenditure on crop insurance premium. I/We undertake entire responsibility for repayment of the crop loan availed from your bank alongwith interest even if the crops are failed due to natural calamities or for any other reasons”. As such the premium amount was not deducted from the account of complainants and the detail regarding the amount could not be uploaded on the portal of the insurance company due to non availability of aadhar card. The complainants are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present complaint against answering op. They were advised to deposit the aadhar card with the bank as insurance was necessary on the instructions from Govt. of India, but they refused to get the crop insured. It is also submitted that complaint is barred by limitation and there is no deficiency of service on the part of answering op. On merits, it is submitted that complainants were having Kisan Credit Card account with the bank, but the account was not properly maintained by complainants as per rules and was non performing account. It is wrong and denied that complainants were entitled for the scheme as alleged. At the time of coverage in the scheme, the loan account was not regular and as such was NPA account. It is also wrong and denied that any amount was deducted from the account of complainant as insurance premium as alleged. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is denied that alleged crop of complainants was insured with the answering op and that complainants have not intimated the answering op regarding loss of crop and have also not provided the requisite documents and as such complaint is not maintainable. It is further submitted that it is not an individual insurance policy like other insurance policies rather it is a group insurance scheme in accordance with agreed terms and conditions of scheme which are binding on all of concerned related to the scheme. The complainants should have approached to DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and the decision of said department would be binding on all state Government/ Insurance Company/ Banks and farmers but instead of this, complainants have approached this Commission by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme. 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 Sh. Gulab Singh complainant as Ex. PW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Mithu Singh son of Sh. Sahibditta as Ex. PW2/B and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10.
7. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Gagan Pal Singh, Deputy Manager as Ex. RW1/A and statement of account Ex. RW1/1. OP no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex. RW3/A and documents Ex. RW3/1 and Ex.RW3/2. The op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities and as such evidence of op no.2 was closed by order.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.3 and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. From the perusal of copy of statement of account of complainants Ex.P6, it is evident that on 10.01.2017 premium amount of Rs.1905.75 was deducted by op no.1 HDFC Bank from the KCC account of complainants for insurance of their wheat crop of Rabi, 2017. Admittedly the complainants have availed crop loan facility from op no.2 bank and therefore, as per scheme of PMFBY, the insurance of crops of loanee farmers is mandatory and the banks have to get insured the crops of the loanee farmers from the respective insurance companies as per said scheme. However, from the statement of account Ex.P6, it is evident that insurance premium amount was not deducted by op no.1 bank for insurance of Kharif crop of 2017 of the complainants. The reason put forth by op no.1 bank in this regard is that complainants themselves objected in this regard and they started agitation regarding deduction of any premium amount on the ground that they have already executed a declaration and undertaking at the time of taking the crop loan that they are not interested in incurring expenditure on crop insurance premium. However, this plea of op no.1 bank appears to be false and is only afterthought to conceal the mistake about non deduction of premium amount for insurance of crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainants because the op no.1 bank has not placed on file any declaration/ undertaking of complainants in this regard on file and op no.1 bank has also not taken option of complainants in this regard in written form because option in this regard is always taken on written form by the bank otherwise crops of loanee farmers are to be insured compulsorily and mandatorily by the bank with the respective insurance companies but op no.1 bank has failed to do so. The another plea of op no.1 bank that at that time account of complainants was not regular and was NPA has also no substance because the op bank could insure the crop of complainants by crediting the premium amount at its own to any insurance company as the scheme was compulsory for loanee farmers and bank has to secure its loan amount and also to prevent any loss to the loanee farmer in case of damage of his crop. Further more, it has also been specified in the operational guidelines of PMFBY in clause no. 17.4.1 that loan disbursing bank branch/ PACS shall finance additional loan equal to the premium amount payable by farmer for crop insurance. The scheme of crop insurance has been launched by the Government of India for betterment of farmers i.e. for providing financial support to farmers suffering crop loss/ damage arising out of unforeseen events. Moreover, the agricultural land was already mortgaged with the op bank and as such security by way of land of complainants was already with the op bank and as per above said clause, the bank was also to finance premium amount. There is also nothing on file to prove the fact that op no.1 bank ever asked the complainants to submit their aadhar cards. Moreover, op no.1 bank also deducted premium amount for insurance of their wheat crop of Rabi 2017 and as such it cannot be said that copies of aadhar cards of complainants were not with op no.1 bank. Therefore, it is proved on record that there is deficiency in service on the part of op no.1 bank as it failed to discharge its duty and has failed to get insured the cotton crop of complainants of the Kharif, 2017 season which was mandatory and as such op no.1 bank is liable to pay claim amount, if any to the complainants for the loss of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. In this regard, op no.3 has placed on file report of Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare department, Sirsa as Ex., RW3/2 according to which the average yield of cotton crop of village Rohan was 257.62 Kgs. per hectare whereas threshold yield of block Baragudha was 631.44 kgs. per hectare and as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainants in Kharif, 2017. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in 2017 was Rs.69,000/- as is evident from Haryana Govt. notification dated 13.06.2017 Ex. RW3/1. So as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainants are entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.1,08,700/- from op no.1 bank for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 bank and direct op no.1 to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,08,700/- to the complainants for the loss of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 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.1,08,700/- from op no.1 alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op no.1 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants within above stipulated period. However, complaint qua ops no.2 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 President,
Dated: 27.03.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
