Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/203/2021

1.Tasveer, 2. Narveer - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. kulvir Singh

29 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. 203 of 2021

                                                         Date of Institution:  20.08.2021

                                                          Date of Decision:     29.02.2024     

 

1.Tasveer aged 32 years, 2. Narveer aged 27 years S/o Mahipal, R/o Village Dohka Hariya , Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri

 

                                                                   ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Bank of India, Charkhi Dadri, through its Branch Manager.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 (Maharashtra) through its authorized signatory/Agent.

 

•  

 

                   COMPLAINT UNDER THE

                   CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -     Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                   Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

 

Present:      Sh. Surender Singh kadian, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Karamvir Singh Chhikara, Adv. for OP no.1.

                   Sh. Rajender Verma, Adv. for OP no.2.

 

ORDER:-

              

1.             Complainants (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) with the averments that he owns and possesses agriculture land, situated in the revenue state of village Dohka Harya, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri. It is averred that the complainant got insured his Cotton crop from the OP no.2 and accordingly, the OP no.2 issued receipt No. 040106201041208666201 and policy no. OG-21-1207-5015-00008393. It is averred that the said crops of complainant were insured by the OP no.2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY). It is averred that the crop of complainant got fully damaged. Consequent there upon the complainant completed all the requirement of OPs in order to get the claim of his damaged crop. Due to negligence of OPs, the village of the complainant was recorded as village Pandawan instead of Dohka Hariya. Accordingly, OP no.2 did not pay the amount of crop loss.  It is further averred that this act amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the complainant seeks directions against the OPs to pay Rs. 5,00,000/-for his cotton crop along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses.
2.             Upon notice, the OP no.1 i.e. Bank of India appeared and filed the written statement. In its written statement, the OP no.1 admitted that as per scheme of PMFBY, answering OP deducted the premium for insurance of the crop and remitted the same to the insurance company mentioning the correct name and address and village name of the complainants. The OP no.1 entered the correct data of complainants and submitted the same to the OP no.2 i.e. the insurance company viz. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. alongwith the premium amount deducted. It is averred that it is wrong that the answering OP mentioned the name of village of complainants as Pandwan in place of Dohka Hariya. Answering OP mentioned the name of village of complainant Dohka Hariya in the data submitted   to the OP no.2. If the village name was changed after submission of data to the portal of OP no.2 due to any technical fault then OP no.1 cannot be liable for that. As per policy scheme, insurance company send the message to the insured person on his mobile no. mentioning all the details such as name, village name, crop area etc. of the insured person for verification. It was the duty of insured to check the message and got the correction done, if any mistake found in the message. If OP no.2 has wrongly mentioned the name of village of complainant as Pandwan in place of Dohka Hariya then OP no.1 cannot be made liable for that. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.1. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OP no.1. 
3.             Upon notice, the OP No. 2 appeared and filed its written statement alleging therein that the complainant had got insured her agricultural land situated at village/notified area of village Pandwan (96), Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri vide policy No.OG-21-1207-5015-00008393 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, covering the crop season of Kharif 2020 for the cultivation of cotton and providing insurance cover at individual farm level to crop covering losses due to occurrence of localized perils/ calamities viz. landslide, hailstorm and inundation affecting part of a notified unit or a plot.  It is averred that there was no intimation received regarding localize claim from the farmer.

As per Clause no. 17.2 of revamped operational guidelines:-

Consolidated declaration/proposal formats to be submitted physically electronically by Nodal banks/Branches shall contain details about insurance unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area insured of the farmers, number and category of farmers covered (small and marginal or other) and number of farmers under other categories (SC/ST/others/Women) alongwith their bank account details etc. (bank/their branches). As per application form provided on the National Crop Insurance Portal, Banks are required to upload the insured farmers’ data mandatorily on the National Crop Insurance Portal. No other platform shall be used for uploading/submission of farmers’ data. Those farmers whose data is uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal shall only be eligible for insurance coverage and accordingly the premium subsidy will also be released.

 It is averred that as per localized claim, there was no intimation received for cotton crop by the answering OP and therefore, no survey was conducted to assess the loss, if any. As per the report, there was no damage in the cotton crop under notified “PANDWAN (96), therefore, the claim was not payable. Moreover, it is averred that there was no shortfall in yield in the given in the season Kharif 2020 for cotton crop, so, no claims were paid. It is averred that the claimant has not suffered any loss, therefore, no such claim is made out and averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2.  It is averred that there stands no liability of the OP Company and the claim is not payable to the complainant. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OP no.2. 

4.                     In the evidence, the counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence on 10.03.2023.

                        On the other hand, the counsel for the OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and closed the evidence on 10.11.2023.The counsel for the OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. RW-2/A and closed the evidence on 20.12.2023.

5.                     We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely.

                         During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs reiterated the contents of their written statement and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents so placed on record by the parties.

6.                     We have observed that the complainant has not submitted any proof for loss of the crop.  The name of the village was wrongly mentioned as “Pandwan” instead of “Dohka Hariya” in the system for insurance of the crop under PMFBY. The same may be ignored if the complainant could have submitted any document for loss occurred in crop during the crop season of Kharif 2020. However, the OP further mentioned in their written statement that no intimation was received by them for damage of cotton crop from the complainant. Hence, no survey was conducted to assess the loss. On perusal of case file, we have also observed that the complainant has not placed on record any documentary evidence to controvert/negate the averments of OPs in regard to any intimation of loss was ever given by the complainant to the OP no.2 (insurance company) at any point of time. Moreover, the complainant has also failed to place on record Loss Assessment Report, if any, duly issued by any competent authority of Agriculture Department.

 

7.                      Further as per contents of written statement submitted by the OP no.2, there was no damage in cotton crop under notified area Pandwan (96). Hence, the claim was not payable to the complainant.  We have observed that the complainant failed to file any replication of the said written statement filed by the OP no.2. If he had any objection in this regard and further failed to place on record any documentary evidence showing that any damage/shortfall took place in the crop in his village viz “Dohka Hariya” area. So, in the absence of any authentic documentary evidence/proof of loss from the side of complainant, we are not sure whether there was any loss to his crop. When the name of the village was wrong/credentials of the complainant does not matches the crop remained uninsured. Hence, the OP no.2 is not supposed to retain the insurance premium and the same should have been refunded  when it was noticed.

8.                     On perusal of written statement of the OP no.2. (insurance company), the onus of the mistake of mentioning name of the village wrongly was passed on the Bank (OP no.1). However, the insurance company is also required to verify the data of insured farmer provided by the Bank. In this connection Clause 16 (xxix) pertaining to  “Role of insurance companies” of the notification no.1408-Agri-II(1)-2019/7280 dated 24.05.2019 issued by Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Haryana is reproduced below:-

          “The insurance Company shall verify the date of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost 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 company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the insurance company to pay the claim.”

Hence, the OP no.2 (Bajaj Allianz Genera Insurance Company Ltd.) cannot be  absolved from responsibility of verifying the credentials of the farmer.

9.                     However, in the present case, the said guidelines have become secondary and this commission primary concern is now, whether any loss had occurred to the crop as the complainant has not submitted any proof for loss of the crop. In view of above discussion and observations, we are unable to believe loss of the crop in the absence of any documentary evidence for loss suffered by the complainant. However, we find that there is a deficiency in service in regard to non verification of credentials and retaining of insurance premium on the part of the OPs. When the crop of the complainant in village “Pandwan” was not insured.

10.                   The OP no.2, insurance company has regretted the claim on the ground that there was no loss of crop in the village “Pandwan” and on the other hand OP no.2 has averred that name of the village was wrong due to mistake on the part of the bank/OP no.1. It means the crop of the complainant was not insured. Hence, the insurance premium charged by the complainant for Rs. 5115.01 (Annexure C6) should not be retained by the OP no.2. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint may be partially allowed and following order is passed:-

1. To refund insurance premium for Rs. 5115.01 alongwith interest @9% w.e.f 30.07.2020, the date on which premium was debited to the account of the complainant till its realization.
2. To pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony and Rs. 3000/- as litigation expenses.

11.                   The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order failing which further interest @12% will be paid by the OP no.2 for the delayed period.

12.                   Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.

13.                   File be consigned after due compliance.