Haryana

Karnal

CC/594/2019

Hari Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Vikram Singh

18 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 594 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.04.09.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:18.07.2023

Hari Singh son of Shri Karta Ram (since deceased) through his LRs.

1. Bishan Singh-son
2. Vinod Kumar-son
3. Kamlesh-daughter
4. Amri-daugher
5. Savita-daguther
6. Rekha-daughter
7. Saroj daughter
8. Ravinder Kaur-dauther

All resident of village Guniana, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal.

 

                                                                 …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

1. Canara Bank, Nissing Branch, through its Branch Manager.

 

2. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager, SCO no.388-399, 1^st floor, Karan Commercial Complex, Mugal Canal Road, Karnal.

 

3. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Manager, Corporate and registered office at “Natraj” 101, 201 & 301 Junction of Western Express Highway and Andhra Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069.

 

4. Deputy Director (Agriculture), Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Vikram Singh, counsel for complainants.

                    Shri Vishal Turan, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OPs no.2 &3.

Shri Surender Kumar Project Officer on behalf of OP no.3.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant Hari Singh (since deceased) has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and having land measuring 11 acres situated in village Guniana, Tehsil Nissing District Karnal as per jamabandi for the year 2014-2015. The complainant has obtained KCC limit from the OP no.1 and land of the complainant mortgaged with OP no.1. OP no.1 has insured the crop under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from OPs no.2 and 3. The OP no.1 has debited the premium from the account of the complainant and said amount was remitted to OPs no.2 and 3. The complainant had sown paddy (wrongly typed wheat) crop in 11 acres of land in 2018 and due to heavy rain fall in the rainy season 2018, his crop was totally damaged. Thereafter, Complainant moved an application to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal for assessing the loss of complainant. On 08.10.2018 the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal visited the field of the complainant and submitted its report. As per report of Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, the loss of the paddy crop of complainant is 53% whereas the loss occurred in the crop 100%. Complainant visited to the office of OPs no.2 and 3 several times and requested to make the payment of compensation of damage crop but OPs no.2 and 3 flatly refused to pay the claim.  Complainant has suffered a mental pain, agony and harassment due to such a malpractice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation of damages crop of the land of the complainant and also to pay compensation for mental agony  and harassment and to pay Rs.51,000/- as litigation costs.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 has deducted the first premium of Rs.6078/- on 31.07.2017 from the account of complainant and then the premium of Rs.3857/- on 29.12.2017 has deducted from the account of complainant for paying the insurance premium of crop and amount of Rs.6248/- dated 20.07.2018, amount of Rs.4240/- on 15.12.2018 was deducted and the said premium was paid by the OP no.1 to OPs no.2 and 3. It is further pleaded that the amount of compensation as alleged for damaged crop of complainant is to be given by the insurance company. The insurance company has not returned the premium amount of policy to the bank, if any, discrepancies were thereon, so the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, if any, to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OPs no.2 and 3 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant never shared policy and application number with insurance company. Hence, insurance company not able to trace the farmer details as per given account number. It is further pleaded that crop insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna which operates area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as in insurance unit. For all major crops, insurance unit is Gram Panchayat and for minor crops, insurance unit is Taluk. It is further pleaded that Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare is fixed for every insurance unit. Actual yield (AY) kilogram/hectare of an insurance unit is calculated by the government taking samples form respective insurance unit at the time of harvesting of the crop through crop cutting experiments (CCEs) which are conducted by State Government. All the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claims is furnished by the government and accordingly the insurance company only calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Provision of operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna vide clause XI: Assessment of loss/shortfall in yield, sub clause 10: Assessment of Claims (Wide Spread Calamities)

“If ‘Actual Yield’ (AY) per hectare of insured crop for the insurance unit (calculated on basis of requisite number of CCEs) in insured season, falls short of specified “Threshold Yield” (TY), all insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in yield of similar magnitude. PMFBY seeks to provide coverage against such contingency.

‘Claim’ shall be calculated as per the following formula:

(Threshold Yield- Actual Yield)

Threshold yield                  X Sum insured.

 

It is further pleaded that in the present case, in the absence of application number, OP is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs no.2 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.4 in its reply stated that there is no intimation of crop loss submits by complainant in Rabi 2018 under crop wheat to Agriculture Department as per guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The other allegations made in the complaint have been wrong and denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the  complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of jamabandi for the year 2014-2015 Ex.C1 to Ex.C5, postal receipt Ex.C6, photographs of crop Ex.C7 and Ex.C8, copy of bank statement Ex.C9, copy of survey report Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 02.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Virender Singh Manager Ex.RW2/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.R5, copy of affidavit of Hari Singh Ex.R6, copy of statement of account Ex.R7 and closed the evidence on 26.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for the OPs no.2 and 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitender Dhabhai, Deputy Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of tabulation sheet Ex.R1, copy of blockwise average yield and threshold yield Rabi 2019-2020 of wheat crop Ex.R2, copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R3, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 13.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             OP no.4 led no evidence after availing several opportunities including last two opportunities. Hence the evidence of OP no.4 was closed, vide order dated 26.05.2023 of the Commission.

10.           We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

11.           Learned counsel of complainant, while reiterating the contents of complainant, has vehemently argued that complainant has obtained cash credit limit for agriculture/loan from the OP no.1 under scheme of cash credit agriculture and for the purpose of loan. Complainant had mortgaged his agriculture land in favour of OP no.1 and OP no.1 has provided crop insurance, under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna through the OPs no.2 and 3 and OP no.1 had debiting the insurance premium from the account of the complainant from time to time for the insurance of crop and the said amount was transferred in the account of OPs no.2 and 3. He further argued that the complainant had sown paddy crop in his field of elevens acres of land in the month of June/July, 2018 but due to heavy rainfall, the crop was badly damaged and thereafter, complainant approached the OPs as well as Deputy Director Agriculture and reported the whole incident. Officials of the Deputy Director Agriculture visited at the site and inspected the damaged crop of the complainant and found damaged to the extent 53% in the crop. The complainant requested the OPs several times to make the payment of compensation but they failed to pay the same and lastly refused to pay the same and prayed for allowing the complaint.

12.           Per-contra, learned counsel of OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that after deduction of premium amount, under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 had remitted premium in the account of insurance company, so there is no fault on the part of the bank/OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP no.1.

13.           Learned counsel of OPs no.2 and 3 argued that Threshold Yield (TY) Kilogram/Hectare is fixed for every insurance unit. Actual Yield (AY) Kilogram/Hectare of an insurance unit is calculated by the government taking samples from respective insurance unit at the time of harvesting of the crop through crop cutting Experiments (CCEs) which are conducted by the State Government. He further argued that all the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claim is furnished by the government and accordingly the insurance company only calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. He further argued that complainant never shared the policy and application number and in the absence of application number, OPs no.2 and 3 are unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

14.            We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

15.           Admittedly, the complainants are an agriculturist and are possessing agriculture land in village Guniana and had obtained crop loan from OP no.1 (bank) and OP no.1 had deducted premium amounts for insurance of crop on behalf of OPs no.2 and 3 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. It is also an admitted fact that the insurance premium was duly remitted in the account of OPs No.2 and 3 by the OP No.1.

16.           Due to damage of crop, complainant (since deceased) moved an application to Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal for inspection of the damaged crop. The team of Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, has inspected the crop of complainant and submitted his report Ex.C10, in which it clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant in village Guniana and observed that damaged in the crop to the extent of 53% in 4.2 acres of land. Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Guniana and same was damaged to the extent 53% but insurance company denied to pay any compensation/claim to complainant while saying that complainant never shared the policy number and application number with the OPs no.2 and 3 and in the absence of application number, OPs no.2 and 3 are unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant.

17.           Moreover, OP no.1 bank has also relied upon the minutes of the meeting to discuss the pending dispute of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) held on 02.07.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri Ajit Bala Ji Joshi, IAS Director General Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana and Minutes of the meeting to discuss the pending dispute of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) held on 11.09.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri D.K. Jain, Zonal Manager (PNB) and Convener SLBC Haryana, in the abovesaid meetings, it was resolved that cases where farmers record mismatch and premium paid by Banks to insurance company on time, whereas insurance company has not returned premium to bank in time, insurance company will pay the claim to farmers as per farmer record.

18.           In rebuttal, learned counsel for OP no.2 has relied upon   the minutes of 4^th Meeting of State Level Grievance Committee held on 14.1.2021, in which it has been resolved/ decided that in case of Village Name Mismatch, the concerned bank branch is liable to pay the claim of affected farmers. This observation has been given by the Committee on the basis of clause no.XXIV of PMFBY for the year Kharif 2016 to Kharif 2018 of Operational Guidelines and clause no.17.2 for the year Rabi 2018-19, Kharif-2019 and Rabi 2019-20 of Revised Operational Guidelines of PMFBY. The clause 17.2 of the Operational Guidelines of PMFBY is reproduced as under:-

“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 dertails etc. (bank/ their branches) as per the application for 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. In cases where farmers are denied crop insurance due to incorrect/ partial/ non-uploading of their details on Portal, concerned Banks/ Intermediaries shall be responsible for payment of claims to them.

                Further relevant portion of clause No.24 of the revised operational guidelines of PMFBY regarding Important Conditions/ Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks is as under:-

24.1 “Insurance Companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intermediary or directly. In case of 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.”

24.2  “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.”

19.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has submitted that abovesaid Minutes of the meeting has already been challenged by the concerned Banks before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the verdict of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court is still pending. Thus the said minutes of meetings are not applicable upon the OPs.

20.            In the present case, the insurance company which has retained the premium amount of complainant for insuring paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 and has not returned the premium amount to bank in time is liable to pay insurance claim for the damage of crop to the complainant. Whereas complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of OPs no.2 and 3 inspected the field of complainant and confirmed about the loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. Therefore, OPs no.2 and 3 cannot go back and cannot avoid its liability when its representative has already found loss by surveying the crop of complainant. So, the insurance company OPs no.2 and 3 only are liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.

21.           Learned counsel for OPs no.2 and 3 had contended that complainant never shared policy and application number and in the absence of application number, insurance company is unable to trace any information regarding the claim of complainant. As per clause 24.2 of guidelines of PMFBY regarding collection of proposal and premium from farmers according to which in case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/ branch in case of compulsory farmer’s coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting. But as already discussed, there is nothing on file to prove the said plea of OPs no.2 and 3  as OPs no.2  and 3 have not led any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that there is any misreporting on behalf of bank for which OP no.1 bank can be held liable. Furthermore, there is nothing on file to prove that insurance company OPs no.2 and 3 have verified the data of the complainant as provided by the bank or found any misreporting on the part of OP no.1 bank. Moreover, insurance company cannot take the shelter that complainant never shared the policy number and application number specifically when the Loss Assessor of the OPs  no. 2 and 3 was very much present at the time of survey of the damaged crop. So, only insurance company OPs no.2 and 3 only are liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, no liability of OPs no.1 & 4 is made out.

22.           Now, we observe the entitlement of the complainants regarding claim amount for the damage of their paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant (since deceased) had sown paddy crop in eleven acres of land but as per survey report Ex.C10 complainant (since deceased) has suffered loss to the extent of 53% in 4.2 acre of land. The said report has not been disputed by the insurance company. As per document issued by Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Haryana, the gross yield of paddy/kharif in the year 2018, in District Karnal is to the tune of Rs.45,000/- per acre. Complainants suffered loss to the extent of 53% in his 4.2 acres of land. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.1,00,170/- (Rs.23850x4.2=1,00,170). Hence, the complainants (being legal heirs of Hari Singh complainant since deceased) are entitled for the abovesaid amount alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. However, no liability of OPs no.1 and 4 is made out.

23.           In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the OPs no.2 and 3 i.e. insurance company to pay the amount of Rs. Rs.1,00,170/- (Rs. one lakh one hundred seventy only) alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainants from the date of filing of present complaint till its actual realization. We further direct the OPs no.2 and 3 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by them and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainants. However, complaint against OPs no.1 and 4 stands dismissed. The awarded amount be paid to all the complainants in equal shares. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Dated:18.07.2023                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member