Haryana

Ambala

CC/367/2021

Hardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Vipul Singh

19 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	366  of 2021
Date of Institution	:	03.12.2021
Date of decision	:	19.02.2024

Karamjit Kaur wife of Sh. Jagtar Singh son of Sh. Roop Singh resident of village Jalbera, Tehsil & Distt Ambala

……. Complainant

Versus

1. Axis Bank, Opposite Grain Market, Manav Vihar- Hissar Road, Ambala City through its Branch Manager.
2. SBI General Insurance Co. through its Authorized signatory, S.C.O 457-458. First and Second Floor Himalaya Marg, Sub City Centre, Sector-35-C, Sector 35. Chandigarh, 160035.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Krishi Kender, Ambala City.

….…. Opposite Parties.

Complaint case no.	:	367 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	03.12.2021
Date of decision	:	19.02.2024

Hardeep Singh son of Sh.Jagtar Singh resident of village Jalbera, Tehsil and District Ambala

……. Complainant

Versus

1. Axis Bank, Opposite Grain Market, Manav Vihar- Hissar Road, Ambala City through its Branch Manager
2. SBI General Insurance Co. through its Authorized signatory, S.C.O 457-458. First and Second Floor Himalaya Marg, Sub City Centre, Sector-35-C, Sector 35, Chandigarh, 160035
3. Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Krishi Kender, Ambala City

….…. Opposite Parties.

Complaint case no.	:	368 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	03.12.2021
Date of decision	:	19.02.2024

Jagtar Singh son of Sh.Roop Singh, resident of village Jalbera, Tehsil and District Ambala

……. Complainant

Versus

1. Axis Bank, Opposite Grain Market, Manav Vihar- Hissar Road, Ambala City through its Branch Manager
2. SBI General Insurance Co. through its Authorized signatory, S.C.O 457-458. First and Second Floor Himalaya Marg, Sub City Centre, Sector-35-C, Sector 35, Chandigarh, 160035
3. Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Krishi Kender, Ambala City

….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:        Shri Vipul Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainants.

                      Shri Anish Kumar Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

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

                    Shri Mohinder Singh, Legal Assistant of Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Ambala City, of the                             OP No.3.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.      

1.                By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid three consumer complaints. Since, the issues involved in the above complaints except minor variations here and there of law and fact are the same, wherein the respective complainants have sought directions to the OPs to compensate them against the damage caused to their respective crops, which were insured by OP No.2, alongwith interest, to pay Rs.20,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss suffered by the respective complainants alongwith interest @ 24% per annum, till the date of payment and also litigation expenses or grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit, 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. 366 of 2021 titled as Karamjit Kaur Vs Axis Bank and others.  The facts are that the complainant being agriculturist is having her account no.912030046065109 in the bank of OP No.1. As per statement of account for the period 16.04.2016 to 20.12.2016 a sum of Rs.11629.55 was deducted on 30.07.2016 as PMFBY Kharif 2016. On 30.08.2016 a sum of Rs.9109.31 was reversed in the account of complainant. Similarly an amount of Rs.1656.65 was deducted on 20.12.2016 as PMFBY Rabi 2016. For the period and 15.04.2017 to 13.01.2018, a sum of Rs.2888.60 has been shown to be deducted on 26.07.2017 as PMFBY Kharif 2017 and similarly a sum of Rs.1833.15 was deducted on 22.12.2017 as PMFBY Rabi 2017. For the period 31.01.2018 to 18.12.2018 a sum of Rs.2969.4 has been shown to be deducted on 06.07.2018 as PMFBY Kharif 2018 whereas a sum of Rs.106 has been shown as refund Kharif 2016 on 20.11.2018. Another deduction of Rs.2014.95 has been shown to be made on 07.12.2018 as PMFBY Rabi 2018. All the above mentioned deductions from the account of complainant were made under the Head PMFBY. The standing Khariff crop 2018-19 of complainant was destroyed due to heavy rain and same was also within the knowledge of the OPs, duly reflected in Khasra Girdawari. OP No.3 conducted a survey and assessed the loss in village Jalbera, Tehsil & Distt Ambala for the year 2018-19 being more than 95%. Thus, the entire insured paddy crop of complainant has been damaged qua which complainant has paid premium and is thus fully entitled to claim the compensation from the OPs. However, when she approached the OPs in the matter, they failed to pay the claim amount qua the damaged crops.  The complainant applied for the required information under RTI Act vide application dated 12.03.2019 but again the information sought under RTI has not been supplied with due deliberations. The complainant was constrained to serve the OP No.1 with legal notice dated 03.09.2019 which was replied by OP No.1 vide reply dated 30.09.2019 through which complainant was called to contact Sh. Anish Kumar Sharma, Advocate and to obtain complete particulars for getting benefits under PMFBY but despite of several contacts by complainant no such particulars were ever provided.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1, appeared and filed written version, in all the three complaints, and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, no cause of action and bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant has filed present complaint regarding the claim of Khariff 2018-19 under the scheme of PMFBY (Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna) which was launched by the Govt. of Haryana on 17.6.2016 vide notification No. 3009/Agri.II(1)-2016/10854 and the aforesaid policy operated on the principle of "Area Approach".  As per the Govt. policy, the complainant had to supply the complete details to OP No.1, but even after personal request and demands as well as reply to the legal notice dated 3.9.2019, the complainant herself had failed to supply the claim intimation within the period of 72 hours as per the clause XIV(c) (i) of the PMFBY Guidelines: Immediate intimation (within 48 hours) by the insured farmer to any one as detailed below" However no claim intimation has been received till date either by OP No.1 or OP No.2. OP No.1 has sent the premium amount to OP No.2 as per Govt. policy. The amount of premium was deducted as per the Govt. policy under PMFBY as envisaged under the operational guidelines of PMFBY. However as per the wishes of the complainant, premium was deducted for insurance of the crops of the complainant from her account. The copy of Khasra Girdawari or intimation regarding damage of crops have not been supplied to OP No.1. OP No.1 informed the complainant to visit in the bank for getting any information but she herself failed to contact OP No.1. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2, appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections with regard to effect that the present complaint is liable to be rejected as the same does not disclose the requisite details/particulars through which dispute of the complainant be identified & replied; the allegations of the complaint are vague & general in nature and does not in any manner disclose under which category of coverage of risks the claim was/is preferred and no documentary evidence regarding policy particular/Application No./ Claim lodging/ surveyor details is mentioned/supplied by the complainant and accordingly Insurance Company is not able to identify the dispute raised by the complainant; the complaint involves complex questions of fact & law that requires production of voluminous evidence, oral as well as documentary and therefore it can be decided only by the civil court;  the complainant is not a consumer etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.2 has also tried to track a complainant claim with the bank account number 912030046065109 which has been mentioned in the complaint copy. The Bank details of the complainant-insured always lies with the Banker of the complainant and does not in any manner help OP No.2 to trace the dispute/controversy. The details of the complaint are inchoate, incomplete and not worth replying According to clause No. XVII (i) (ii) and clause No. XXIV (iv) of Central Government guideline for PMFBY misreporting by the bank/branch regarding details of farmer name, village, crop name, season, premium etc. on the government portal, the bank shall be liable for misreporting, compensation and consequences. As per the minutes of 4th Meeting of State Level Grievance Committee (SLGC) under the chairmanship of Shri Vijay Singh Dahiya, I.A.S., Director General Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Haryana, held on 14/01/2021 wherein it was recommended that where the data is not uploaded on the portal by the Bank "the guidelines of the scheme mentioned in the responsibility of the bank at 35.5.2.8, that the Nodal Banks/Administrative offices/Bank Branches shall upload the details of each individual insured farmers on National Crop Insurance Portal through web-form or CBS on or before final cut-off date" Bank is liable to pay the claim to the concerned farmers. Crop Insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (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. The Crop damage compensation is calculated on the basis of formula i.e. Shortfall in Yield and Localized Risks.  In the present case, in the absence of application number we are unable to trace any information regarding the claim. According to clause No. XVII (i) (ii) and clause No.XXIV (iv) of Central Government guideline for PMFBY misreporting by the bank/branch regarding details of farmer name, village, crop name, season, premium etc. on the government portal, the bank shall be liable for misreporting, compensation and consequences. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Upon notice, OP No.3, appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections with regard to effect that the complainant is not the consumer of the OP No. 3 hence the present complaint is not maintainable against the O.P. No. 3; the complaint against OP No.3 is not maintainable as its role is restricted and only to forward the application of the complainant to the other OPs. OP No.3 is just a channel of liaising agency between farmers, Banks and the Insurance Company; this Commission has no Jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; the present complaint is time barred; there is no cause of action to file the present complaint etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant has applied for the localized loss and filled the form on 12-10-2018, in the office of OP No.3, which was forwarded to OP No.2, for conducting the survey. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Benax Solat, Axis Bank Ltd., Ambala City as Annexure OPW/1 alongwith document as OP-1 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Nishant Gera, Authorized Signatory of OP No.2-SBI General Insurance Company Limited, 46, Pusa Road, New Delhi as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith document Annexure OP-2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2. Legal Assistant of the OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Dr.Jaswainder Saini, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ambala as Annexure OP-3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.
7.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant & OPs No.1 and 2 and legal assistant of OP No.3 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
8.           Learned counsel for the complainants submitted that since the OPs failed to pay the claim under the policy in question despite the fact that the damage caused to the respective crops during subsistence of the insurance policies in question, therefore, the OPs are deficient in providing service.
9.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 submitted that its duty was to transfer the premium amount received from the complainants to OP No.2, which was done by OP No.1. He further submitted if OP No.2 did not make the payment of the damaged crops of the complainants, OP No.1 cannot be held responsible.
10.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that deficiency in service, if any, is on the part of OP No.1 as it failed to give the details qua payment of premium etc. qua the accounts maintained by the complainants and also other details necessary for releasing the claim amount. He further submitted that OP No.2 tried its level best to trace the record and other details from OP No.1 but to no avail. He further submitted that    in the absence of application number we are unable to trace any information regarding the claim. According to clause No. XVII (i) (ii) and clause No. XXIV (iv) of Central Government guideline for PMFBY misreporting by the bank/branch regarding details of farmer name, village, crop name, season, premium etc. on the government portal, the bank shall be liable for misreporting, compensation and consequences.
11.           Legal Assistant of Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, OP No.3 submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation, as such, liable to be dismissed solely on this ground. Even otherwise, the present complaint is not maintainable against OP No.3 as its role is restricted to forward the application of the complainants to the other OPs. OP No.3 is just a channel of liaisoning agency between farmers, Banks and the Insurance Company. He further submitted that the complainant has wrongly alleged that the OP No.3 has assessed the loss to the paddy crop for the Khriff Season 2018-2019 in village Jalbera, Ambala to the extent of 95%, whereas, the OP No.3 has assessed the loss to the extent of 74%. To corroborate this fact he has produced the report which is taken on record and marked as ‘A’.  
12.           So far as the objection regarding the present complaint is time barred is concerned, it may be stated here that if the period of two years is counted from the year 2018 i.e the last cause of action, when the crops of the complainants were admittedly damaged due to inundation/hailstorms, after excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, due to pandemic of Covid-19, in view of the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Superme Court in Civil Original Jurisdiction, miscellanous application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Moto writ petition ( C) of 2020, in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, wherein it was held that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 (with extension of 90 days) i.e till the end of May, 2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any General or Special Laws in respect of all Judicial or quasi Judicial proceeding, this complaint filed on 03.12.2021 is within limitation.
13.           Coming to the merits of this case, it may be stated here that it is not in dispute that the complainants are the owners of the respective fields, as per the details given in the respective consumer complaints. It has also not been disputed by the OPs that the paddy crop for the Kharif Season 2018, sown by the complainants was duly insured with OP No.2. However, as per the version of OP No.2, it was the fault on the part of OP No.1-Bank that the complainants could not be paid compensation for their damaged crops. It has further been stated by OP No.2 in its written version and has also been reiterated by its Counsel during arguments that OP No.2 tried to track the claim documents of the complainants with OP No.1-Bank and it was found that the details qua application no. and premium remittance details were not supplied by OP No.1, as a result of which, OP No.2 was unable to take any action in the matter.   
14.           It is significant to mention here that since material allegations were leveled by OP No.2 against OP No.1, to  controvert the same, it was required by the OP No.1, to place on record any documentary evidence to prove that on receipt of respective premiums from the complainants, in each case, the applications/cases of the complainants were forwarded to OP No.2 for  issuance of the insurance policies in question, especially, when OP No.1 itself has placed on record the receipt of respective premiums received from the complainants. But nothing has been placed on record by the OP No.1 to prove that it forwarded the applications/cases of the complainants to OP No.2.
15.           As per Provision XVII (1) & (2) of the Operational Guidelines of PMFBY, which reads as under:-

(1) 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.

(2) In case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting.

16.           The Bank was duty bound to forward the cases of the complainants to the OP No.2 but it failed to do so. It is thus held that bank is responsible for the negligence committed by it and is liable to pay the amount for the loss suffered by the complainants. From the report, Mark ‘A’, it is evident that the average loss due to inundation/hailstorms to the paddy crop for the kharif season, 2018-2019, in the village Anandpur Jalbera (121) was to the extent of 74%, hence, the bank is liable to pay the amount to the extent of 74% of the sum assured corresponding to the value of premium deducted from the account of the respective complainants.
17.           Since, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No2 and 3, therefore, the complaints filed by the complainants against them are liable to be dismissed.
18.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaints against OPs No.2 and 3 and allow the same against OP No.1-Bank and direct it, in the following manner:-

1. To pay the amount to the extent of 74% of the sum assured corresponding to the value of premium deducted from the account of the respective complainants alongwith interest @ 5% per annum, from the date of filing of the respective complaints.    
2. To pay Rs.3000/- each to the respective complainants, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainants.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- each to the respective complainants, as litigation expenses.

                   The OP No.1-Bank 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.  

19.           Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules and one copy of this order be also placed in the connected consumer complaints.   

  Announced:- 19.02.2024.

 

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