BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 348 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 19.05.2022.
Date of Decision : 07.06.2024.
Subhash, aged about 37 years son of Shri Bhima Ram son of Shri Moti Ram, resident of village Sadewala, PO Dhudianwali, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Central Bank of India, Branch Rania, V.P.O. Rania, Main Bazar Road, Rania, District Sirsa, through its Manager/ Branch Manager/ Principal Officer.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company India Limited, Cabin No.7, 3rd Floor, Agrou Mall, Sector 20, Panchkula – 134117 through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Namit Goyal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER:-
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (herein after referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist and earning his livelihood by doing agricultural work and has no other source of income. He is owner in possession of land measuring 69 kanals 19 marlas being 1/2 share of total land measuring 139 kanals 19 marlas situated in village Sadewala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa and similarly his brother Hans Raj is also owner in possession of remaining 1/2 share of land. That complainant is having KCC bank account with op no.1 bearing account number 2080086977 and op no.1 bank used to deduct insurance premium amount from the bank account of complainant of its own without prior permission of complainant since 2016 and on 31.12.2021 premium amount of Rs.3577/- was also deducted by op no.1 bank for insurance of his wheat crop with op no.2 as per Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna but op no.1 did not deduct insurance premium from bank account of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif 2021 without any rhyme and reason whereas op no.1 was authorized and duty bound to deduct the insurance premium and as such op no.1 is negligent in this regard. It is further averred that crop sown by brother of complainant namely Hans Raj was also damaged and he was paid compensation of Rs.1,46,604/- and other villagers have also been paid due compensation for their losses whereas complainant did not receive any claim amount for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2021 due to above said negligence of op no.1 bank because crop of farmers who have availed were to be compulsory insured as per PMFBY. That complainant approached and requested the ops many times to admit his claim and to pay amount of his damaged crop but the ops after putting off the matter on one pretext or the others have finally refused to admit his claim and have caused unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op is not at fault as complainant himself failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account for deduction of the installment because all the process is generated through computer and due to the aforesaid reason the installment/ premium amount of complainant could not be deducted. The complainant filed the present complaint only to conceal his fault whereas complainant himself is at fault and he wrongly filed the present complaint against answering op and complainant is not entitled to any compensation from op bank. It is further submitted that it is wrong to say that it was duty of answering op rather it was the duty of complainant to firstly maintain sufficient balance amount in his account for deduction of premium amount. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and denied for want of knowledge and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version submitting therein that complainant is not a consumer of op no.2 as the details of the complainant were not uploaded at the NCIP for Kharif 20221 season, which is mandatory for becoming a beneficiary as per PMFBY and thus no claim is payable to the complainant farmer for the above mentioned season. It is further submitted that as per clauses of operational guidelines of PMFBY, only bank is responsible to pay the claim amount to the complainant and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.
6. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Geddam Gandhi Raju as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. OP no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities including last opportunity and as such evidence of op no.1 was closed by order.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. The op no.1 bank has taken the plea that premium amount for insurance of cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2021 could not be deducted from the account of complainant because there was no sufficient balance in his account and as such his crop of this season could not be insured with the insurance company. However, the insurance of loanee farmers is mandatory as per operational guidelines of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna. The op no.1 bank could insure the crop of complainant by crediting the premium amount at its own to the insurance company as the scheme was compulsory for loanee farmers and bank has to secure its loan amount and also to prevent any loss to the loanee farmer in case of damage of his crop. In this regard it has been specified in the clause 17.5.1 of operational guidelines of PMFBY that loan disbursing bank branch/ PACS shall finance additional loan equal to the premium amount payable by farmer for crop insurance. The scheme of crop insurance has been launched by the Government of India for betterment of farmers i.e. for providing financial support to farmers suffering crop loss/ damage arising out of unforeseen events. Moreover, the agricultural land was already mortgaged with the op no.1 bank and as such security by way of land of complainant was already with the op no.1 bank and as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, the bank was also to finance premium amount. It is not the case of op no.1 bank that complainant himself has opted out i.e. given his consent for not insuring his cotton crop of Kharif, 2021 and op no.1 bank has not placed on file any option of complainant in this regard. So, the op no.1 bank has violated the operational guidelines of PMFBY and has defaulted in his duties for getting his crop insured and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of op no.1 bank for not insuring the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2021 by financing additional premium amount and as such op no.1 bank is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2021. The complainant has duly proved on record that there was loss to the cotton crop of Kharif, 2021 because his brother Hans Raj who has also equal land as that of complainant in village Sadewala, Tehsil Rania, District has already received claim amount of Rs.1,46,604/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2021 as is evident from credit message Ex.C2 and further loss of cotton crop of complainant is also proved from report/ letter of Deputy Director of Agriculture department, Sirsa as Ex.C6 in which it is reported that average yield of cotton crop of village Sadewala in Kharif, 2021 was 305.24 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Rania was 591.66 Kgs. per hectare and as such as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, since the average yield of village was less than threshold yield of block there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2021. The complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.1,46,604/- equal to his brother Hans Raj as both of them having equal land and even as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant has not claimed any exaggerated amount for the loss of his cotton crop in his 69 kanals 19 marlas land and has claimed justified amount. The complainant is entitled to above said amount of Rs.1,46,604/- from op no.1 bank because as per clause 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY 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 (if any).
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against op no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 bank to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,46,604/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.1,46,604/- from op no.1 bank alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op no.1 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.2 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President,
Dated: 07.06.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
