District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.433/2019.
Date of Institution: 05.09.2019.
Date of Order: 25.02.2022.
Rambir Singh S/o Shri Munshi Ram, aged about 47 years R/o village Kaurali, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana Aadhar No. 9862 5869 0992, mobile No. 9891785257.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Bank of India, Village Badrola, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad through its Branch Manager.
2. Agriculture & Farmer’s Welfare Deptt. Faridabad through its Deputy Director, Room NO. 602 to 605, Sector-12, Mini Secretariat, Faridabad, Haryana.
3. M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. having head office at: Siddhivinayak Temple, ICICI Lombard House, 414, Balu Marg, SVS Road, Prabhadevi Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 025.
4. M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., having regional office at: 2nd floor, Krishna Towers, BP-55, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad, Haryana – 121001 through its Divisional Manager.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Sujata Pruthi ………..…Member.
Consumer Complaint No.433/2019.
PRESENT: Sh. Arun Gupta, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. J.S.Yadhuvanshi, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Project Officer PMFBY on behalf of opposite party No.2.
Sh. Rakesh Dabaas, counsel for O.P.Nos.3 & 4.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was having an account in Bank of India, Village Badrola, Ballabgarh and as per scheme of Govt. of India under PMFBY (Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna) scheme, the opposite party No.1 deducted the amount of premium of insurance on 31.07.2017 from the bank account No. 673232110000162 as KCC (Krishan Credit Card) account of the complainant. On 22-23 September due to heavy rain the crop (fasal) of paddy cultured in 3 Acres land was fully destroyed. Ac complaint for compensation was filed by the complainant alongwith other necessary documents before opposite party No.2 i.e. Deputy Director Agriculture, Distt. Faridabad on 24.09.2017, vide complaint reference No. R-1055. After the official of opposite party No.2 inspected the spot and prepared survey report on dated 28.09.2017. In the survey report prepared by Block Agriculture Officer, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, it was mentioned that 70-80% crop had been destroyed over the area measuring 2 acre and .80 hectare Reason mentioned was “Adhik Varsha Ke karan Jal Bharwaw se Fasal Kharab Hui”. After moving the application for compensation before the opposite party No.2 for claiming the compensation of destroyed crop as per scheme “Pradhanmantri Fasal Beema Yojna” in the year 2017, the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.2 several times but no satisfactory response was given to the complainant and also not released the compensation amount to the
Consumer Complaint No.433/2019.
complainant. The complainant paid the premium amount towards insurance of his paddy crop and the crop was destroyed due to heavy rain in the intervening night of 22-23.09.2017 but the opposite parties were escaping from their liability to pay the compensation as per scheme. The complainant did not submit the loan of KCC having A/. No. 673232110000162 as the crop of the complainant was totally destroyed due to rain. Even otherwise the complainant did not receive any compensation amount of destroyed crops from the opposite parties after deducting the premium amount of insurance of crops from KCC account. Opposite party No.l deliberately added the interest in the KCC account without giving any compensation of destroyed crops of the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice dated 28.11.2018 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) make the payment of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- as per survey report of official of opposite party No.2 severally and jointly alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of due till the date of realization to the complainant.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that It was submitted that the complainant was having KCC account No. 673232110000162 with the answering opposite party No.1. It was further submitted that as per the policy/scheme of the Govt. of India under the PMFBY Scheme the answering opposite party No.1 deducted premium from the said KCC account of the complainant and also deducted from the accounts of many account holders and sent a collective premium of Rs.2,71,707.19 Ps. to the opposite parties
Consumer Complaint No.433/2019.
Nos.3 & 4 through RTGS No. UTR No. BK1DH 17226659799 dated 14.08.2017 and also sent the list of the account holders for which the said premium was sent. It was further submitted that the said premium was credited din the account of opposite parties Nos.3 & 4. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No. 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant farmer reached in the office on dated 24.09.2017 for claiming crop loss compensation for 3 acre for paddy crop. Their office submitted his complaint and sent to the insurance company and BAO Ballabgarh Agriculture Department. It was further submitted that all three persons committed inspected the destroyed filed of farmer and prepared a survey report with 70-80% loss in 2.80 acre with due to water logging due to heavy rain. It was further submitted the claim compensation were to be paid by insurance company as mentioned in the operations guide lines of PMFBY. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Opposite parties Nos. 3 & 4 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that it was submitted that after inquiry from booking data base for the year 2017 as well as Govt. portal data by the insurance company, it was revealed that “Farmer-Rambir Singh s/o Sh. Munchi Ram bearing A/c. No. 673232110000162 through Bank of India, Badrola Branch, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana was not insured with the insurance company because the insurance company could not able to find any detail with such combination uploaded by Bank of India, Badrola Branch on Govt. portal. Not only this, as per relevant provision of the operational guide line of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna as
Consumer Complaint No.433/2019.
reproduced above, the insurance company had insured/booked under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna those farmers whose were details were available on Govt. portal. In this regard, Haryana Govt. Notification as well as letters from Joint Secretary Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi dated 12.07.2017 & 24th July 2017 were also self explanatory for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Fora. Opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file as well as written arguments filed by the complainant alongwith calculation.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – Bank of India & ors. with the prayer to a) make the payment of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- as per survey report of official of opposite party No.2 severally and jointly alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of due till the date of realization to the complainant. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Rambir Singh,, Ex. C-1 – Transaction inquiry, Ex.C-2 - letter written by the complainant to Agriculture & Farmer’s Welfare deptt., Faridabad regarding damage, Ex.C-3 – letter from Deputy Director Agriculture to ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company regarding intimation of crop loss due to localized calamities,, Ex.C4 – inspection report of damage of crop,, Ex.C-5 – legal notice, Ex.C-6 to C9 – postal receipts, Ex.C-10 to 13– track reports. Ex.C-14 – letter dated 10.10.2019.
Consumer Complaint No.433/2019.
On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated . As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1,, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Amit Tyagi, Chief Manager, Bank of Inda, Tigaon, Faridabad, Ex.R-1 - transfer debit receipt,
On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties. 3 & 4 strongly agitated . As per the evidence of the opposite parties Nos. 3 & 4,, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Deepak Bansal, Manager (Legal), M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi, Ex.R-1 - letter dated 12.07.2017 written by Dr.Ashish Kumar Bhutani, Joint Secretary to Govt. of India to CMDs of all commercial scheduled banks, Ex.C-2 – letter dated 24.07.2017, Ex.R-3 – operational guidelines
10. In this complaint, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for the damaged crop of area i.e 3 acre., The counsel for the complainant argued at length that the main issue was in this complaint for the non-issuance of the insurance policy objected by opposite party No.1. An application was also filed by counsel for opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 in this regard. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 in their written statement and their reply of application given a UTR number that they have paid the insurance premium to opposite party No.1.
11. The counsel for the complainant argued at length and also agitated on the ground that the premium of policy has already been deducted from the account of the complainant form opposite party No.1 on 14.08.2017 vide Ex.C-1 Officer of opposite party No.2 i.e Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department has also argued that there duty is just to make the survey of the field alongwith opposite parties Nos.1,3 & 4.
Consumer Complaint No.433/2019.
12. There is no doubt that the amount of premium was deducted from the account of the complainant. It was the duty of the bank to issue the insurance policy of the crop. The counsel for opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 argued at length and stated at Bar that the bank had paid the amount after cut out date and also submitted Ex.R1 to R3 which are the mandatory entry of all coverage details on portal from Kharif 2017 onwards. The insurance policy could not be issued due to sole deficiency of the bank making payment after the cut out date of the Central Govt. policy and entry did not made by the bank as per the provision laid down by Central Government in Ex.R1 to R3.
13. In this case, bank is responsible for its deficiency because cut out date was 31.07.2017 and the bank paid premium to the insurance company on 14.8.2017 for the insurance policy for the farmers after cut out date. The policy could not be issued as per policy submitted by opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 of the central Government for the farmers and the mandatory entry of all coverage details on portal from kharaif 2017 onwards in PMFBY. In this way, the liability goes against opposite party No.1 i.e Bank and they will pay the damage of the crop as per assessment done by opposite party No.2 i.e. Agriculture & Farmer Welfare department. The complainant is suffering from 2019 till now.
14. After going through the evidence led by both the parties, there is no doubt that the premium was taken by the bank from the account of the complainant and as per the report of opposite party No.2 that the crop was damage 70-80%. There is no fault of the consumer/farmer. As per the policy of the PMFBY , the assessment of the Dhan per acre is approx. Rs.15,000/- and there was loss of 70-80% in approx. area of 3 acres and the compensation of the damaged crop should be given to the farmer as per the policy. Keeping in view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that opposite party No.1 is failed to establish
Consumer Complaint No.433/2019.
their case. They did not submit the list of the insured farmers in their evidence. So the liability of the compensation goes against opposite party No.1.
15 Opposite party No.1 is directed to:
a) pay Rs. 42,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a from the date of damage till its realization.
b) pay Rs.3300/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.
c) pay Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.
Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 25.02.2022. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
( Sujata Pruthi)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
