BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 309 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 08.11.2021.
Date of Decision : 12.07.2023.
Gurdev Singh son of Shri Sucha Singh, resident of village Chattargarh Patti, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd., Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa Branch through its Branch Manager.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Cabin No. 07, 3rd Floor, Agro Mall, Sector 20, Panchkula- 134117 through its Regional Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Ravinder Chaudhary, 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 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant availed KCC crop loan from op no.1 against mortgage of his agricultural land of village Chattargarh Patti, Tehsil and District Sirsa through account No. 06108040002797. That as per Govt. scheme, the cotton crop of complainant was got insured by op no.1 in Kharif 2020 season and amount of insurance premium was debited in aforesaid loan account of complainant and was paid by op no.1 to op no.2. It is further averred that due to climatic conditions, his cotton crop including other farmers was damaged and other farmers have already received compensation in this regard but complainant has not been paid any compensation so far. That complainant approached the ops and requested them for payment of compensation but they did not pay any heed to the same. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops on 2.9.2021 but of no use and ops have caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement submitting therein that bank has debited the amount of Rs.9653.68 on 31.07.2020 from the account of complainant and has credited the same to the account of op no.2 as premium of the insurance, which has never been refunded back. All the information required by op no.2 was sent to the insurance company as per rules. It is further submitted that as per clause 18 (xxi) of Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department notification dated 15.07.2020, the insurance company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of cut-off 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. It is further submitted that insurance company has neither informed regarding discrepancy in the record nor has refunded the amount to the complainant or to the bank. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 filed written version submitting therein that complainant farmer has neither mentioned his NCI Application IDs nor mentioned his farmer ID no. in the complaint for coverage of cotton and bajra crops during kharif 2020 season under PMFBY due to malafide intentions as the same are required to ascertain their crop insurance coverage and for submitting reply accordingly. It is further submitted that claims are paid as per the provisions of Revamped Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) and State Govt. notification. It is further submitted that as per NIC portal coverage, the crop of complainant in village Chattargarh Patti, District Sirsa was not insured with the answering op during above mentioned season, whereas cotton crop of complainant in village Sirsa (Rural) 81, District Sirsa is insured on the NIC portal by op no.1 bank. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any claim for crops in village Chattargarh Patti, District Sirsa from op no.1. According to op no.1, cotton crop of complainant was insured vide eight different applications ID in village Sirsa Rural (81) District Sirsa and as there was shortfall in the actual yield for the insured cotton crop in village Sirsa (Rural) (81) District Sirsa during kharif 2020 season, therefore area approach claim of Rs.338.33/- against one application ID and amounts of Rs.350.86 each against remaining seven applications ID was paid to the complainant as per provisions of the scheme. Further according to op no.1, eight different applications ID of complainant were uploaded by HDFC Bank Ltd. for coverage of Bajra crop in different lands of village Sirsa (Rural) (81) Block Sirsa, District Sirsa during kharif, 2020 and as there was no shortfall in the actual yield for the insured Bajra crop in village Sirsa (Rural) during kharif 2020 season, therefore, no area approach claim is payable to the complainant farmer for above mentioned crop during kharif 2020 season as per provisions of the scheme. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 bank has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Deputy Manager as Ex.R1 and statement of account of complainant as Ex.R2.
7. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Jaspal Singh Khurmi Regional Manager as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R29.
8. We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for ops and have perused the case file.
9. From the statement of account of complainant Ex.R2 placed on file by op no.1 bank, it is evident that on 31.07.2020 two different amounts of Rs.9092.27 and Rs.561.41 were deducted as premium amounts from the account of complainant for insurance of his crop of Kharif, 2020. So, it is proved on record that total amount of Rs.9653.68 was deducted from the account of complainant as premium for insurance of his crop of kharif, 2020 and according to op no.1 bank said premium amount deducted by it was paid to op no.2 insurance company for the insurance of crop of complainant of kharif, 2020. The complainant has alleged that he had sown cotton crop in his agricultural land situated in village Chattergarh Patti in kharif, 2020 season which was damaged but he has not received any insurance claim for the damage of his insured cotton crop. From the copy of khasra girdawari placed on file by complainant as Ex.C6, it is evident that complainant had sown cotton crop in 56 kanals 41 malras of land and guar and bajra crops in remaining agricultural land. The complainant in order to prove damage to his cotton crop in the land situated in village Chattergarh Patti, District Sirsa has also placed on file report/ letter of the Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa as Ex.C4 according to which the average yield of cotton crop in village Chattargarh Patti in Kharif, 2020 was 342.64 Kgs. per hectare whereas the threshold yield of cotton crop in Kharif, 2020 in block Sirsa was 649.26 Kgs. per hectare. Since the average yield of village Chattargarh Patti was less than the threshold yield of block Sirsa, therefore, as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2020.
10. Now we assess the loss to the complainant in terms of money for the damage to his cotton crop in Kharif, 2020. For the calculation of loss of crop, a formula has been given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, which is as under:-
Threshold yield minus average yield X sum insured X Area
_____________________________
Threshold yield.
11. The complainant sown cotton crop in his 56 kanals 41 marlas of land which is equal to 2.93 hectare. As per Haryana Govt. notification dated 15.07.2020 Ex.R5, the sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2020 was Rs.81545/- per hectare. So, as above said formula, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.1,12,835/- for the damage to his cotton crop in kharif, 2020 in above said 56 kanals 41 marlas of land. Since complainant has claimed insurance claim for the damage to his cotton crop only and not to the other crops sown by him, therefore, complainant is entitled to the said amount of Rs.1,12,835/-.
12. Now the question arises for consideration that which of the opposite parties i.e. either op no.1 bank or op no.2 insurance company is liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.1,12,835/- to the complainant? It is proved on record by the op no.2 insurance company through documents Ex.R6 to Ex.R23 that land of complainant was wrongly shown by op no.1 in village Sirsa Rural (81) on National Crop Insurance Portal whereas actually complainant is having his land in village Chattargarh Patti, District Sirsa. The village mismatch is also proved from the document placed on record by complainant as Ex.C3. So, the op no.1 bank only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant and insurance company is not responsible in this regard. Though learned counsel for op no.1 bank has contended that insurance company was to verify the data of insured farmer at its own independently as per clause 18 (xxi) of Haryana Govt. notification dated 15.07.2020 Ex.R5 but we found no substance in the said contention of learned counsel for op no.1 bank because as per said clause if the loss would have been occurred in village Sirsa Rural as uploaded by op no.1 bank and insurance company has not verified the data of farmer, then insurance company could not have raised any objection regarding loss in village Sirsa Rural. The insurance company no.2 has already paid the claim amount to the complainant as per loss of cotton crop in village Sirsa Rural as uploaded by the op no.1 bank. Moreover, in the meeting of District Level Monitoring Committee held by Sh. Anish Yadav, IAS, Deputy Commission, Sirsa on 06.07.2021, the minutes of which has been placed on file by complainant as Ex.C2, it was resolved that in the cases of village mismatch, the concerned banks will pay the insurance claim to the farmers. Further more, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula in a similar case titled as The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank now merged with Union Bank of India Versus Rupinder Singh and others Appeal No. 803 of 2022 decided on 11.01.2023 has held that “As per provision 17.2 of operational guidelines of PMFBY for difference of claim due to wrong information, if any, concerned bank/ intermediaries were responsible”. The Clause 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY stipulates that 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). The appeal filed by the bank in the above said case was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission. As such complainant is entitled to above said claim amount from op no.1 bank after deduction of Rs.2794.35 already paid by op no.2 insurance company which has been paid by op no.2 insurance company for the loss of cotton crop in village Sirsa Rural as uploaded by op no.1 bank. Therefore, complainant is entitled to claim amount of Rs.1,10,040/- from op no.1 bank after deduction of the amount of Rs.2794.35 from the total claim amount of Rs.1,12,835/- as there is deficiency in service on the part of op no.1 bank towards the complainant.
13. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua op no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 bank to pay the above said amount of Rs.1,10,040/- as claim amount to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to the above said amount of Rs.1,10,040/- from op no.1 bank alongwith interest @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.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. In case op no.1 bank fails to comply with this order within above said stipulated period, complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Sections 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against op no.1 bank. However, complaint against op no.2 insurance company 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
Dt. 12.07.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
