Haryana

Karnal

CC/603/2019

Sohinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Sharma

14 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 603 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.05.09.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:14.11.2022

 

Sohinder Singh @ Surinder son of Shri Sulakhan Singh, resident of house no.32, village Sonkra, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Central Bank of India, Branch Railway Road, Taraori, District Karnal, through its Senior Manager/Executive Officer.

 

2.     SBI General Insurance Co. office at first floor, B.D. International, SCO 388, 389, Karan Commercial Complex, near Guru Harikishan School, old Char Chaman, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

3.     Deputy Director of Agriculture Department, 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 Harish Parkash, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri V.K. Malik, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Naveen Kheterpal, counsel for the OP no.2.

                    Shri Surender Kumar, Project Officer on behalf of

                    OP no.3.

               

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

 

           

                The complainant 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 purchased an insurance policy under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and insured his paddy crop and in this regard, he deposited the premium amount of Rs.2978.59 on 14.12.2018 and Rs.4643.97 dated 15.07.2019 through his bank account bearing account no.2080400363 maintained in Central Bank of India, Branch Taraori, Karnal i.e. OP no.2. Due to heavy rain the water was standing in the fields of the complainant and due to which standing crop of the complainant has been destroyed and information regarding the damage of crop was sent to the OP no.1 on 07.08.2019 and on that information, official of OP no.1 visited the fields of complainant and inspected the crop and as per the reports of OP no.1, 75% of standing crop has been destroyed due to the standing of water in the fields of the complainant. Thereafter, OP no.2 has passed the claim of the complainant and sent the claim amount in the bank account of the complainant but same has been returned back to the OP no.2 with the reason that the address of the complainant has not been fully/completely mentioned in the bank account of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant moved an application to the OP no.2 and asked the reason for returning the claim amount, then official of OP no.2 told that there is no fault on the part of the complainant and due to the negligence on the part of the bank and the said amount has been returned back to the OP no.2.  Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 27.05.2019 to the OPs with the request to sent/disburse the claim amount but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to sent the claim amount in the bank account of complainant and directed to correct the particular of complainant in their record, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment etc. and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

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 after ducting the premium amount of Rs.2978.59 from the account of complainant, OP remitted the same to the account of insurance company will within time. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 neither inspected the land of the complainant nor issued the land survey no.446,447,457. 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.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, It is pleaded that as per the PMFBY: Actual Yield (AY) kilogram/hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy (irrigated) in village:- Gangar (72). Hence the complainant is not liable for any claim as per PMFBY guidelines. 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. It is further pleaded that 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, as the Actual Yield kilogram/Hectare was more than Threshold Yield Kilogram/Hectare for crop:- paddy in village-Gangar (72), which is respectively crop insured by and insurance unit of complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit under the policy.

Crop         District    Village         Farmer        Actual        Threshold    Claim

                                                  Type             Yield         Yield 

                                                            (AY)         (TY)

Paddy                Karnal      Gangar (72)      -             3450.79    2581.38         0

                     

 

 

Based upon the calculation of the claim Rs.0, Hence the complainant are not liable for any compensation. It is further pleaded that complainant is not entitled for any compensation for damages to the crop as claimed amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 in its reply stated that due to heavy rain the water was standing the fields of the complainant and due to which the standing paddy crop of the complainant has been destroyed and the information regarding the damage of standing crop has been sent to the OP no.2 on 07.08.2018 and on that information, the official of the OP no.2 visited the fields of the complainant and inspected the crop and as per the report of the OP no.2, 75% of standing crop has been destroyed due to the standing of water in the fields of the complainant. Complainant moved an application to the OP no.2 and asked the reason for returning the claim amount, then the official of OP no.2 told that there is no fault on the part of the complainant and to the negligence on the part of the official of the OP bank, the amount of compensation has been returned back to the insurance company. There is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. They misreporting village on the GOI portal insured farmer details village Ganger (72) instead of village Sonkra (51). As per PMFBY operational guidelines clause XXIV (4) (e), if case claim have arisen during crop season then respective bank and its branches would be responsible to make payment of the admissible claims to the loanee farmers who were deprived from the insurance cover to their crops. So, OP no.1 responsible for the claim amount.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice dated 27.05.2019, postal receipts Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, acknowledgement Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, copy of survey report Ex.C6, copy of complaint dated 19.03.2019 Ex.C7, copy of bank passbook Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 26.08.2021 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, Learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sushil, Manager Ex.OW1/A and closed the evidence on 03.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Arvind Singh Naruka Ex.RW1/A, copy of insurance acknowledgement receipt Ex.R1, copy of tabulation sheet of sum insured Ex.R2, copy of screen short of Government portal Ex.R3,  copy of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 13.01.2022 by suffering separate statement.              

9.             OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Project Officer Ex.OP3/A, copy of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.OP1, copy of email Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on -02.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

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 insured his crop under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna through the OP no.2 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 OP no.2. He further argued that the complainant had sown paddy crop in his field of 4.5 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 75% in 4.5 acres of land. The complainant requested the OPs several times to make the payment of compensation but they failed to pay the same and lastly 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 for OP no.2 argued that Actual Yield (AY) kilogram/hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy in village Gangar, hence the complainant is not liable for any compensation. 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.  As per Ex.R3 i.e. screen short of portal, the name of village is mentioned as Gangar by OP no.1 instead of village Sonkra and there is no loss in village Gangar, hence the claim of the complainant was rightly declined. There is no fault on the part of the insurance company and OP no.2 is not liable for the wrong act committed by OP no.1 i.e. bank and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

14.           OP no.3 submitted that the crop of the complainant was damaged due to overflow water. OP no.3 inspected the fields of complainant on 16.08.2018 and prepared the report in which they shown that the crop of complainant damaged to the extent of 75% in 4.5 acres of land.

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

16.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land in village Sonkra 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 OP no.2 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. It is also an admitted fact that the insurance premium was duly remitted in the account of OP No.2 by the OP No.1.

17.           Due to damage of crop, complainant 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.C6, in which it clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant in village Sonkra and observed that damaged crop in 4.5 acres of land to the extent 75%.  Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Sonkra and same was damaged to the extent of 75% in 4.5 acres of land but name of village has been wrongly mentioned by OP no.1 bank in the insurance portal as village Gangar instead of Sonkra. 18.         Furthermore, so far as loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 is concerned, the complainant has specifically stated that in Kharif, 2018 season his crop in area of 4.5 acres were damaged due to water logging due to heavy rain and he moved an application to the agriculture department with regard to loss of crop. He has also stated that agriculture department and insurance company inspected/ surveyed his damaged crop but insurance company denied to pay any compensation/claim to him while saying that there is no loss in village Gangar. The survey report Ex.C6, conducted by agricultural department and representative of insurance company, reveals that on 16.08.2018 agriculture department and representative of insurance company had inspected the field of complainant in complainant’s presence and found that his paddy crop in area of 4.5 acres of land was damaged to the extent of 75% due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report Ex.C6, that paddy crop of complainant in area of 4.5 acres of land in village Sonkra had damaged and he has suffered loss on account of damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The OP no.2 has not paid claim amount to the complainant on the ground that as the actual yield was more than threshold yield in village Gangar, therefore, complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The OP no.3 in its written version specifically mentioned that on the GOI portal, the crop village of the farmer is a mismatch of the village name. In the portal ID, the area of crop insured of complainant has been shown in village Gangar instead of village Sonkra and as such OP no.2 has taken stand that crop of complainant in village Sonkra is not insured with it. No doubt, the OP no.1 bank has wrongly uploaded the name of the village of complainant, but according to clause 19 (xxii) of Haryana Government Agriculture & Welfare Department Notification dated 30.3.2018, the insurance company is to verify the data 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, OP no.2 cannot take such plea that there is mismatch of the village name of the complainant as there is nothing on file to prove the fact that OP no.2 insurance company had verified the data of the complainant as provided by the OP no.1 independently and sought any correction and OP no.2 has retained the premium amount of complainant and has not refunded the same to the complainant due to mismatch of village name of complainant. Moreover, OP no.1 bank has also relied upon copy of 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 as in the said meetings it was resolved that cases where farmers record mismatch and premium paid by Banks to insurance company on time, whereas insurance company not returned premium to bank in time, insurance company will pay the claim to farmers as per farmer record.

19.           Learned counsel for OP no.2 has also 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.”

20.           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.

21.           In the present case, the insurance company OP no.2 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 hence the plea of OP no.1 that actual yield was more than threshold yield in village Gangar is not relevant. Furthermore, the OP no.2 has also not proved by cogent and convincing evidence that actual yield of village of complainant i.e. Sonkra was more than the threshold yield. Furthermore, the crop of the complainant got surveyed individually not consolidated by the Agriculture Department, which has been proved from the survey report Ex.C6. Complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of insurance company OP no.2 inspected the field of complainant and confirmed about the loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. Therefore, OP no.2 cannot go back and cannot avoid its liability when its representative has already found loss to the crop of complainant.  So, the insurance company OP no.2 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, no liability of OPs no.1 and 3 is made out.

22.           Now, we observe the entitlement of the complainant regarding claim amount for the damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant had sown paddy crop in 4.5 acres of land and has suffered loss to the extent of 75%. The said report has not been disputed by the insurance company. As per document issued by Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Haryana, as also produced in many another cases, the gross yield of paddy/kharif in the year 2018, in District Karnal is to the tune of Rs.45,000/- per acre. Complainant suffered loss in his 4.5 acres of land to the extent of 75%.  In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.1,51,875/-(33750x4.5=1,51,875/-). Hence, the complainant is entitled for the abovesaid amount alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. However, no liability of OPs no.1 and 3 is made out.

23.           In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the OP no.2 to pay the amount of Rs.1,51,875/- alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of present complaint till its actual realization. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complaint against OPs no.1 and 3 stands dismissed. 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:14.11.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member

 

 

Sushma

Stenographer