Haryana

Ambala

CC/428/2019

Rupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deputy Director of Agriculture - Opp.Party(s)

Bhajan Singh Behgal

11 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaintcase no.	:	428 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	05.12.2019
Date of decision	:	11.11.2022

Rupinder Singh son of Shri Gurdas Singh, resident of village Aujlon, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala.         

……. Complainant

Versus

1. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Deptt. Of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Ambala
2. The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank now merged with Union Bank of India & Known as Union Bank of India, Opposite Sector-7, Ambala City.
3. Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance company, SCO-335-336, 1 & 2^nd  Floor, Sector-35-B, Chandigarh..

 

….…. Opposite Parties.

 Before:      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri B.S.Behgal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Ms. Manjit Kaur, Authorized representative for the OP No.1.

                   Shri Pardeep Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

                   Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

                             (a) To release the claim amount of Rs.2,07,200/- of paddy     crop, 2018,to the complainant @ Rs.29,600/- approx. per                          acre along with interest @24% p.a, from the date of   application till its realization.

(b) To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

 

(c) Cost of the litigation.

 

​OR

Grant any other relief to which this Hon'ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and is owner of seven acre of agricultural land situated in village Dhanori, Tehsil Ambala Cantt, Distt. Ambala. The Govt. of India launched a policy for the farmers for the insurance of their crops under the scheme PMFBY through different banks, controlled by the OP No.1. The crop of the complainant was duly insured by OP No.3 and the premium amount of Rs.2858.03 was deducted on 27.7.2018 from the account of the complainant (No. 560381003262107) maintained with OP No.2. The complainant had sown crop of paddy in the above mentioned agricultural land during the month of June and first week of July. 2018. In the month of last week of September and October, 2018 the paddy crop was matured and the complainant spent huge amount in the form of pesticides, fertilizers, irrigations etc. However, the entire crop was destroyed due to the heavy rain and hailstones. It came to the knowledge of the complainant that while getting the crop insured, OP No.2 faulted on the portal by mentioning the agriculture land situated at village Dorana instead of village Dhanori. Thereafter, OP No.2 issued letter No. OR/0496/ 25032019/4 dated 25.03.2019 regarding correction of particular of the land as village Dhanori, instead of village Dorana. The entire crop of the complainant was destroyed in the month of October, 2018 but till date no compensation has been received by him. The complainant approached OP No.1 in the matter and also moved an application to the Chief Minister Haryana on 28.03.2019 but no action has been taken in this regard till date. Thereafter, complainant served a legal notice dated 19.07.2019 upon the OPs, through his counsel but they gave false and frivolous reply to the same.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction, barred by limitation and no cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.1 is just a channel of liaisoning agency between farmers, Banks and the Insurance Company. Under the policy of the Govt. OP No.1 has no control.  OP No.1 received the inundation application in which the complainant mentioned the name of his village as Aujlon and the same was forwarded to O.P. No.3. OP No.1 has also received the application of the complainant along with letter of the bank (Corporation Bank), written to the Lead District Manager, Ambala vide office letter No. 4406 Dated 18-07-2019 for taking necessary action. OP No.1 is not the office for disbursing any compensation to any farmer. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
4.           Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts etc.  On merits, it has been stated that OP No.2-Corporation Bank is being amalgamated with Union Bank of India as per Govt. Notification. The complainant is having his Bank account with the Union Bank of India Ambala City, previously corporation bank of OP No.2. Under the Govt. sponsored scheme, OP No.3 made and issued the insurance policy to various farmers including the complainant for giving benefits to the farmers in case the standing crops of farmers are damaged due to hailstone or heavy rain, flood etc. The transactions for giving relief in terms of money by the Govt. and deduction of amount as premium of Insurance Policy were to be made directly from the bank account of every farmers to avoid any illegal activity towards the farmers. OP No.2 now Union Bank of India Ambala City is only having the Bank account of complaint and nothing else. The dispute is between the complainant and OP No.1 and 3 and the OP No.2 has no concern with the matter in dispute. The bank account of complainant held in OP No.2 shows the deduction of Rs.2858.03 as premium of the insurance policy made by OP No.3. This transaction is on line transaction made by OP No. 3 on the request of complainant made while obtaining insurance policy from OP No.3 under Govt. sponsored scheme. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
5.           Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared and filed written version raised preliminary objections with regard to the fact that this complaint deserves to be dismissed in limine for want of cause of action; the complaint involves complex questions of fact & law that requires production of voluminous evidence, oral as well as documentary; Civil Court is the competent authority to adjudicate the issues involved in the complaint etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.3 processed the claim of the complainant only after due perusal of all documents and information received and within the precincts of terms and conditions of the Policy. OP No.3 has not erred in offering services to the complainant under the settled business practices of insurance industry and terms and conditions of the Policy. OP No.3 paid the complainant localize claim of Rs.26,053/- as per details available on GOI Portal. The same amount has been disbursed in complainant bank  account maintained with OP No.2. The policy has been issued to complainant along with the application ID No. 040106181121058227901 under the coverage of Paddy Crop as per the PMFBY guideline & GOI portal. OP No.3 has received joint surveyor report regarding assessment of loss as per the Govt guideline (PMFBY) for the Village  Dorana (271), OP No.3 assessed the loss of Rs.26,053/- as localize manner. Neither Insurance company is expected to collect loanee farmer's documents to cross check the details of insurance uploaded by bank nor insurance company can change details of insurance of individual farmer. As per provision 17.2 of operation guideline on PMFBY for difference of claim due to wrong information, if any, concerned bank/intermediaries shall be responsible. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, authorized representative for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of  Girish Nagpal, working as Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ambala as Annexure OP-1/A and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Jeetendra Kumar, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Ambala City as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith document Annexure OP 2/1 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.2. Learned counsel for OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Arvind Singh Naruka, Authorized Signatory, # SBI General Insurance Company Limited, 46, 3^rd floor, Karol Bagh, Pusa Road, Opposite Metro Pillar No.29, New Delhi as Annexure OP-3/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-3/1 to OP-3/4 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.3.
7.            We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, authorized representative for the OP No.1 and learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 and carefully gone through the case file.
8.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that since it was on account of fault of the OPs and especially, OP No.2 that the name of village of the complainant had been wrongly mentioned in the record, under the scheme referred to above, as such, he was caused financial loss, as he was not paid the entire amount of loss, occurred due to the paddy crops because of heavy hailstorm.
9.           On the other hand, authorized representative for OP No.1 submitted that complaint against the OP No.1 is not maintainable as its role is restricted to forward the application of the complainant to the other OPs. OP No.1 is just a channel of liaisoning agency between farmer, Bank and the Insurance Company. He further submitted that for any fault of OP No.2 in supplying wrong name of village of the complainant, OP No.1 cannot be faulted at. 
10.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that it was the complainant who supplied wrong name of his village to OP No.2. However, when it came to the knowledge of OP No.2, necessary documents were issued in that regard, for rectification of the said wrong name of the village of the complainant.
11.           Learned counsel for OP No.3 submitted that the amount of claim was released to the complainant, in respect of the damaged crop, in accordance with the details of village provided by OP No.2 and as such, for any fault of OP No.2 in supplying wrong name of village of the complainant, OP No.3 cannot be faulted at. 
12.           The first question that falls for consideration is, as to whether this complaint is time barred or not. It may be stated here that if the period of two years are counted from 25.03.2019 i.e. the date when OP No.2 Bank issued letter for correction of name of village of the complainant, this complaint having been filed on 05.12.2019 is within limitation. Thus, objection taken regarding time barred is rejected.
13.           Coming to the merits of this case, it may be stated here that from the perusal of Jamabandi, Annexure C-11, it is evident that the agriculture land of the complainant is situated in Village Dhanori, H.B. No.186, Ambala. It is also not in dispute that the paddy crop for the Kharif Season 2018, sown by the complainant was duly insured with OP No.3. It is also coming out from the document dated 25.03.2019, Annexure C-5, issued by OP No.2 Bank to the effect that it has wrongly entered the name of the village/crop details of the complainant as Dorana (271) instead of Dhanori (186). However, it is further coming out from the record that though as per the information dated 27.05.2022, Annexure C-12 having been issued by the competent Authority to the effect that the loss suffered to the paddy in Dhanori (186) was to the extent of 95%, yet, on account of providing of wrong name of the village of the village/crop details of the complainant as Dorana (271) instead of Dhanori (186) by OP No.2 Bank to OP No.3-insurance company,  the insurance company paid lesser amount after calculating the loss of the paddy in the village Dorana (271),  whereas, on the other hand, the loss of the paddy in the village Dhanori was much higher.
14.           In our considered opinion, OP No.2 Bank was duty bound to provide the information contained in document dated 25.03.2019, Annexure C-5, with regard to correction of name of village of the complainant to the insurance company, within a short span of time, after going through the record, with due diligence at the very initial stage of filling up of application form by the complainant but it failed to do so. Mere issuance of the said document, Annexure C-5, without addressing to any one and that too after a long delay, has no significant value in the eyes of law. The OP No.2-bank was thus deficient in providing service and negligent, thereby causing loss to the complainant. As per Provision XVII (1) & (2) of the Operational Guidelines of PMFBY, which reads as under:-

(1) Insurance companies should have received the premium for coverage either from Bank, Channel Partner, insurance intermediary or directly. 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.

(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.

 

          The Bank is responsible for the mistake committed by it and is thus liable to pay the amount of loss suffered by the complainant. As stated above, from the perusal of letter dated 27.05.2022, Annexure C-12, by the competent Authority to the effect that the loss suffered to the paddy in Dhanori (186) was to the extent of 95%. Perusal of Annexure OP3/1 reveals that the paddy crop sown by the complainant in 1.7408 hect. of land was insured for total sum insured of Rs.1,27,948.80. As such, complainant is entitled to get the claim of Rs.1,21,551/- (Rs.1,27,948.80 X 95%). As per the OP No.3, the claim amount of Rs.26,053/-, has already been paid to the complainant. This fact has not been denied by the complainant. Thus, the bank is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.95,498/-, (Rs.1,21,551.36 - Rs.26,053/-) to the complainant. Since, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 and 3, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against them is liable to be dismissed. 

15.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OPs No.1 & 3 and allow the same against OP No.2 and direct it, in the following manner:-

1. To pay Rs.95,498/-, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 5% per annum, from the date on which the amount of Rs.26,053/-, was paid to the complainant, till its realization.    
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OP No.2 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced on:- 11.11.2022

 

	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
	Member	President