BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 66 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 18.03.2021.
Date of Decision : 12.01.2023.
Devender Kumar son of Ram Lal, resident of village Ding, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Bhattu Mandi, District Fatehabad.
2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Garg Tyre, 2nd Floor, Opp. Nirankari Bhawan, GT Rd, Bathinda, Punjab 151001.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Argued by: Complainant in person.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Madan Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is resident of village Ding, Tehsil and District Sirsa and is having agricultural land measuring 5.26 hectares in village Malsisar, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in which he had sown Guar crop in Kharif, 2018 and mustard crop in Rabi, 2018 and got insured the said crops against the damage under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna through op no.1 vide his account No. 359351000201. That accordingly on 30.07.2018 premium amount of Rs.4544.64 was deducted for insurance of his Kharif crop of 2018 and on 27.12.2018 premium amount of Rs.4155.19 for insurance of his Kharif crop (it should be Rabi crop) was deducted. It is further averred that due to some reason/ draught, the above said crop was damaged and even he could not recover the expenses spent on sowing the crop. That other farmers of his village whose crops were also damaged have already received claim amount and complainant was also entitled to receive claim amount for the damage of his crop but he has not been paid any claim amount so far. That complainant personally visited the branch of op no.1 bank and requested for payment of his claim amount upon which the Branch Manager and other concerned officials replied that due to some technical reason he has not received claim amount and they are not at any fault for the same and he will receive claim very soon and in this way they are delaying the matter time and again and about one and half year has already passed but he has not received any claim amount so far. It is further averred that thereafter complainant lodged his complaint on the toll free number of op no.2 insurance company through telephonic call upon which after checking their online record, they told to the complainant that the branch of his bank has not deposited premium amount with them for insurance of his crop and due to this reason he has not received claim amount. It is further averred that complainant came to know about the fact that despite deduction of premium amount from his account, the op no.1 bank has not remitted the same to the insurance company no.2 and as such he did not receive claim amount for the damage of his insured crop and op no.1 has committed illegal act in this regard with the complainant. That despite his several requests made to op no.1 they delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and did not give any satisfactory reply and by misleading him have caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to him. That instead of admitting their mistake, the op no.1 replied that his adhar card is mis-matched and same is not linking with his account due to which he has not been paid claim amount. That in this regard op no.1 bank is misleading him because premium amount for insurance of his crop of Kharif 2019 was also paid, the claim amount of which has already been received by him and if there may be the reason of mismatch of his adhar card, then he could not receive the premium amount of Kharif, 2019 and as such it is very much clear that op no.1 has misled him time and again and has caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to him. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no locus standi, suppression of true and material facts, complaint is hopelessly time barred, estoppal etc. On merits, it is submitted that all the loanee farmers are compulsorily required to submit the aadhar number/ copy of aadhar card or authenticate themselves through aadhar enabled e-KYC alongwith mobile number for enrolment under the crop insurance before the prescribed cutoff date as per the PMFBY guidelines point no.35.9.2. The data entry in respect of the insurance premium was failed on portal due to name as per Bank record not matching with adhar data base of the complainant. The said fact was informed to the complainant to get his name updated in aadhar as per bank records. A SMS was also sent to complainant before beginning of season in June 2019 (Farmers who did not have their aadhar updated in bank record) and after entry was failed in September, 2019 ( before reopening of Portal) to (Farmers where entry was not completed due to Name Mismatch in Bank record and Aadhar). But the complainant failed to do so. Therefore, his aadhar details on the portal could not be updated. It is further submitted that the Bank had done data entry of accounts where farmers had updated/ provided their names as per aadhar when portal was reopened for entry in October, 2019. Insurance premium is refunded to complainant KCC account as and when it is received from the insurance company i.e. op no.2. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 prayed for.
4. Op no.2 filed reply raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable against answering op. The op no.2 not received any consideration for insuring the crop of the complainant, hence complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer qua op no.2. That for Kharif, 2018 the booking of insurance was done on the basis of the farmers details available on PMFBY National Crop Insurance Portal as uploaded by the Banks. But in the present case, the concerned Bank has not uploaded the farmer’s date on PMFBY NCIP and hence the said farmer is not insured with answering op. Further as per the Government Guidelines, the Banks/ Intermediaries shall be responsible for payment of such claims to the farmers. While explaining about the clauses of operational guidelines of PMFBY, other preliminary objections regarding not maintainability of complaint for want of jurisdiction, limited coverage as per scheme, yield basis claims are decided by Government, no survey, no quantification of loss, non impleading of necessary parties are also taken. On merits, it is again submitted that insurance company not received any premium for insuring the crop of the complainant, hence as per the relevant guidelines of Government, the insurance company is not liable to pay the loss of the complainant, if any and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Replications to the written statement filed on behalf of ops no.1 and 2 have also been filed by complainant in which contents of written statements filed by ops have been denied and contents of complaint are reiterated.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C17.
7. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Vijay, Branch Manager Ex.R1 and statement of account Ex.R2. OP no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Hardeep Singh, Deputy General Manager as Ex.R3, operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R4 and adhar card of complainant Ex.R5.
8. We have heard complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. The complainant in order to prove his ownership over the land measuring 5.26 hectare situated in village Malsisar, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) has placed on file copy of jamabandi as well as khasra girdawari Ex.C17. From the perusal of khasra girdawari Ex.C17, it is also proved on that complainant is sowing Guar crop in Kharif season and Bengal Gram (Chana) in Rabi season and similarly he had sown Guar crop in Kharif, 2018 and Bengal Gram (Chana) in Rabi 2018-2019. From the copy of statement of account of complainant Ex.C3, it is also proved on record that on 30.07.2018 an amount of Rs.4544.64 was deducted by op no.1 bank for insuring the Guar crop of complainant and on 27.12.2018 an amount of Rs.4155.19 was deducted by op no.1 from the account of complainant for insuring Bengal Gram (Chana) crop of complainant of Rabi 2018-2019. In this regard, op no.1 bank has categorically stated that above said premium amounts deducted by op no.1 were remitted to op no.2 for insurance of crops of the complainant as per Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The complainant has also placed on file copy of transaction uploaded by the bank op no.1 on portal as Ex.C2, the perusal of which reveals that premium amounts were duly remitted to the op no.2 insurance company for insuring the Guar and Bengal Gram (Chana) of the complainant of Kharif, 2018 and Rabi 2018-2019 and insurance company op no.2 has failed to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that it did not receive premium amounts for insuring the above said crops of the complainant. In the said document Ex.C2, there is also mention of the fact of Aadhar name issue. The op no.1 bank has also averred that data entry in respect of the insurance premium failed on portal due to not matching of name of complainant in bank record with adhar data base of the complainant. But however, op no.1 bank has failed to prove on record that op no.1 bank timely informed the complainant that his adhar card is mismatched with bank record. There is nothing on record to prove that bank has ever informed the complainant to get his record corrected and it is not proved on record that bank has ever demanded any particular from the complainant which has not been matched on the portal. The insurance premium amounts which were retained by op no.2 insurance company have been returned back to the complainant after a long time i.e. on 18.12.2021 and on 22.12.2021 after a period of three years as is evident from the statement of account Ex.C3. So, it is proved on record that both the opposite parties i.e. op no.1 and op no.2 are deficient in service towards the complainant.
10. In so far as damage to the crops of complainant is concerned, the complainant during the course of arguments has placed on file a letter dated 6.12.2022 received by complainant from Deputy Director Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan under RTI whereby it was informed to him that crop wise per hectare claim in Malsisar Patwar has been given and it is also mentioned that claim amount of Rs.26,497/- per hectare for Guar crop in Kharif, 2018 in Milsisar Patwar has been given. It is also mentioned in this letter that claim amount of Rs.24,552/- per hectare for Bengal Gram (Chana) in Rabi, 2018-2019 in Milsisar Patwari has been given. So, it is proved on record that there was damage to the crops of Guar in Kharif, 2018 and Bengal Gram (Chana) in Rabi, 2018-2019 in village Milsisar where the complainant is having his agricultural land and as such there was also damage to the said crops of complainant. As such, complainant is also entitled to the claim amount at the rates mentioned in the above said letter. The complainant is having 5.26 hectares of land in village Milsisar and therefore, complainant is entitled to the claim amount of Rs.1,39,374/- (5.26 X 26,497/-) for the damage to his Guar crop in Kharif, 2018. Similarly, he is entitled to the claim amount of Rs.1,29,143/- (5.26 X 24552/-) for the damage to his Bengal Gram (Chana) crop in Rabi 2018-2019. Therefore, complainant is entitled to total amount of Rs.2,68,517/- for the damage to his above said crops of Guar and Bengal Gram (Chana) and both the opposite parties i.e. bank and insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of Rs.2,68,517/- to the complainant.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against the opposite parties and they are directed to pay the amount of Rs.2,68,517/- as claim amount to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We further direct the ops no.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order within above said stipulated period, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the principal amount of Rs.2,68,517/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. However, ops are at liberty to deduct premium amounts of Rs.4544.64 and Rs.4155.19 either at the time of payment of claim amount or they can make separate demand in this regard from the complainant before releasing of the claim amount. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President
Dt. 12.01.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
