BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 116 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 21.06.2021.
Date of Decision : 30.08.2024.
Inder Singh ( aged about 54 years) son of Sh. Lal Singh son of Sh. Hadi Ram, resident of village Baruwali-I, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank Ltd, Branch Sangwan Building, Near Canara Bank, Dr. Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd., Head Office, HDFC Bank Limited having its registered office “ HDFC Bank House”, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 through its authorized person.
3. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Regional Office, Cabin No.7, 3rd Floor, Agro Mall, Sector-20, Panchkula (Hr.) – 134117 (Phone No. 0172-2538046) through its Regional Manager/ Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR …………………MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Rakesh Pareek, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ravinder Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2 .
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2020.
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist and is owner in possession of land measuring 103 kanals 02 marlas ( 12 acres 07 kanals 02 marlas) comprised in Khewat No. 337 Khatuni No. 475 Kittas 19 situated at village Baruwali-I, Tehsil and District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017. The complainant obtained KCC facility from op no.1 over the aforesaid land through account number 50200002356562. That as per crop insurance scheme of Government, op no.1 got insured the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2020 vide policy No. 040106201011152430401 by deducting premium of Rs.8838.38 from the account of complainant on 21.07.2020. It is further averred that whole of the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2020 was damaged due to natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught which was also verified by agriculture department and a report in this regard has been submitted to ops and as such complainant sustained losses of Rs.7,80,000/- approximately on account of damages to his insured crop. That op no.3 did not pay any claim amount to the complainant whereas all other farmers have already received compensation from op no.3 and despite his several requests, the ops kept on lingering the matter on one false pretext or the other and now about week ago, the ops have refused to disburse any such amount to the complainant with lame excuses. It is further averred that claim of complainant has not been indemnified by op no.3 due to fault on the part of op no.1 and the act and conduct of op no.1 amounts to deficiency in service, gross negligence and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to indemnify the claim of complainant and also to pay compensation for unnecessary harassment.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Ops no.1 and 2 filed written version submitting therein that bank has debited the amount of Rs.8838.38 on 21.07.2020 from the account of complainant and has credited the same to the account of op no.3 as premium of insurance, which has never been refunded back. All the information required by op no.3 was sent to the insurance company as per rules and there is no deficiency of service on the part of answering ops. It is further submitted that as per clause 18 (xxi) of Haryana Government 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. The insurance company has neither informed regarding the discrepancy in the record nor has refunded the amount to the complainant or to the bank. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.3 also filed written version submitting therein that as per NCI portal coverage, the cotton crop of complainant in village Baruwali-I (67), Sirsa was not insured with the answering op during the above mentioned season, whereas paddy crop of complainant in village Baruwali-I, (67), Sirsa is insured on the NCI portal. Therefore, complainant is not entitled to any claim for the cotton crop as mentioned in the complaint from insurance company under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) during Kharif 2020 season. It is further submitted that as there was no shortfall in the actual yield of insured paddy crop in village Baruwali-I (67) block, Sirsa during Kharif, 2020 season, therefore, no area approach claim is payable to the complainant farmer and as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, the bank is responsible for any mistake while uploading the data of complainant on the portal. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents i.e. statement of account Ex.C2, jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C3 and Khasra Girdawari Ex.C4.
6. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Gagan Pal Singh, Deputy Manager as Ex. RW1/A and statement of account Ex. RW1/1. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Geddam Gandhi Raju, Regional Manager as Ex. RW3/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. The complainant is claiming insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 and has placed on file copy of Khasra Girdawari Ex.C4 which reveals that complainant is sowing cotton crop in Kharif season. Whereas op no.1 bank got insured paddy crop of complainant with op no.3 as is evident from document Ex.R6 placed on file by op no.3. In this regard, op no.1 bank is at fault for insuring paddy crop of complainant instead of cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 because in Kharif, 2019 season the op no.1 bank deducted premium amount on 30.07.2019 from the account of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 as is evident from statement of account placed on file by ops no.1 and 2 itself as Ex.RW1/1 and as such version of ops no.1 and 2 taken in the affidavit Ex. RW1/A for the first time that at the time of advancement of loan to the complainant by op no.1, the complainant had declared the pattern of crop for his land as paddy- wheat and complainant had never informed the bank regarding the change of the pattern of the crop found to be false because op no.1 also deducted premium amount for insurance of cotton crop of Kharif, 2019. So, it cannot be said that op no.1 bank was not aware about pattern of crops of complainants. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has placed on file report/ letter of Deputy Director of Agriculture department, Sirsa according to which the average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 in village Baruwali-I was 384.20 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Sirsa was 649.26 Kgs. per hectare. So, as operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss of cotton crop in village Baruwali-I in kharif, 2020 season and as such there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2020 season. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in the year 2020 was Rs.81,545/- per hectare as is evident from document Ex.R4. So, as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.1,75,000/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 in his 5.26 hectares of land for which premium was deducted by op no.1 bank. The ops no.1 and 2 only are liable to pay the said claim amount to the complainant due to above said mistake. In this regard Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula in the latest judgment in 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.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite parties no.1 and 2 bank and direct ops no.1 and 2 to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,75,000/- 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.1,75,000/- from ops no. 1 and 2 bank alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the ops no.1 and 2 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.3 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 Member President,
Dated:30.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
