BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 256 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 11.10.2021.
Date of Decision : 12.08.2024.
1. Jaswant Singh aged about 48 years son of Shri Harbans Singh son of Shri Partap Singh
2. Harbans Singh aged about 72 years son of Shri Partap Singh, residents of village Panniwala Ruldu, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank Ltd, Plot No.4, Near Anaj Mandi, Kalanwali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Head Office: Plate B & C, 5th Floor Office, Block I, East Kidwai Nagar, NH 48, Opp. AIIMS Gate 2, New Delhi- 110023 through its authorized person.
3. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Ist Floor, Dharma Satya Plaza, Near SBI ABD Branch, Dabwali Road, Sirsa through its authorized person.
4. Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa.
...…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. S.N. Grover, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. Ravinder Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Opposite party no.3 already given up.
Smt. Kiran Rani, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.4.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainants against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the loss of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2020.
2. In brief, the case of complainants is that they are agriculturists. The complainant no.1 is owner in possession of total land measuring 109 kanals 03 marlas and complainant no.2 is owner in possession of land measuring 64 kanals 06 marlas and as such both the complainants are owners in possession of total land measuring 173 kanals 09 marlas (as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) situated in village Panniwala Ruldu, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. The complainants have availed KCC facility from op no.1 on their agricultural land through joint account no. 50200018025161. It is further averred that as per crop insurance scheme, for insurance of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 a sum of Rs.36,287/- was deducted by op no.1 from the joint account of complainants on 21.07.2020 and op no.1 got insured the crops from op no.2 under the collaboration scheme but did not supply copy of insurance policy despite their requests. That cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 in their village including their crop was destroyed on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and a report in this regard was also prepared by op no.4, therefore, complainants are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per acre. It is further averred that complainants approached the ops and requested to pay the claim amount but on all the occasions the ops asked them to wait on the ground that process of claims take some time. That other villagers received compensation within a short time and then complainants had moved an application in this regard to CM Window on 23.06.2021. It is further averred that only an amount of Rs.83,000/- was paid to the complainants by ops which is very much less claim amount and they came to know that as land of complainants has been shown in village Panniwala Mota instead of Panniwala Ruldu by op no.1 and villagers of village Panniwala Mota has been given compensation at the rate of Rs.4000/- per acre. The complainants also approached to op no.1 in this regard and requested to compensate them but op no.2 refused to do so stating that it is op no.1 who is at fault in sending the information on account of which remaining claim of complainants has been repudiated and it appears that both the ops in collusion with each other have deliberately done so for causing loss to the complainants with a malafide intention and as such the ops have caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version submitting therein that bank has debited the amount of Rs.36,287.53 on 21.07.2020 from the account of complainant and has credited the same to the account of op no.2 as premium of insurance which has never been refunded back. All the information required by op no.2 was sent to insurance company as per rules. The insurance company has neither informed regarding the discrepancy in the record as per clause 18 (xxi) of Haryana Govt. notification dated 15.07.2020 nor 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 qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version submitting therein that only crop insurance coverage of complainant no.1 Jaswant Singh is found on the NCI portal whereas no details of complainant no.2 is found on the NCI portal. The op no.1 bank vide seven application IDs shown the land of complainant no.1 on the portal in village Panniwala Motora (207) Block Odhan, District Sirsa. As there was shortfall in the actual yield of insured cotton crop in village Panniwala Motra, thus area approach claims of Rs.11,934.5 and Rs.11841.26 have already been paid to the complainant farmer on 04.06.2021 for Kharif 2020 season as per PMFBY scheme and op no.2 is not liable to pay any other amount and only op no.1 bank is responsible for remaining claim amount as per operational guidelines of PMFBY. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.3 was given up by learned counsel for complainant.
6. Op no.4 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or survey of loss of crop is to be prepared by op no.4 and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of op no.4 in this regard. The yield basis claims are settled by insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by op no.4 within specific time period and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.4 made.
7. The complainants in evidence have tendered affidavit of complainant Jaswant Singh as Ex. CW1/A, affidavit of Jagtar Singh son of Sukhdev Singh Ex.CW2/A, statement of account of Jagtar Singh Ex.C2/A, affidavit of Gurlal Singh Ex. CW3/A and his statement of account Ex.C3/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.
8. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Geddam Gandhi Raju, Regional Manager as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R17. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Gagan Pal Singh, Deputy Manager as Ex. RW1/A and statement of account Ex. RW1/1. Op no.4 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex. RW4/A and documents Ex.RW4/1 and Ex. RW4/2.
9. We have heard learned counsel for parties, Smt. Kiran Rani, SA for op no.4 and have gone through the case file.
10. The complainants have claimed insurance claim for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 sown in total agricultural land measuring 173 kanals 09 marlas situated in village Panniwala Ruldu and the fact that they are having their land in village Panniwala Ruldu is proved from copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C1. But however, the op no.1 bank while uploading the detail of only complainant no.1 at the portal shown his land in village Panniwala Mota instead of village Panniwala Ruldu which fact is also proved from documents Ex.R7 to Ex.R14 placed on record by op no.2. The op no.4 which is liable to conduct survey of loss of crops of farmers has placed on file report of Deputy Director Agriculture Department, Sirsa as Ex. RW4/2 according to which the average yield of cotton crop in village Panniwala Ruldu in Kharif, 2020 was 253.86 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Dabwali was 572.94 Kgs. per hectare. So as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss to the cotton crop of complainants in Kharif, 2020. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2020 was Rs.81,545/- per hectare as is evident from notification dated 15.07.2020 Ex.RW4/1. So, as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainants were entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.3,99,460/-. The complainants have already been paid claim amount of Rs.83,000/- as admitted by them and which fact is also proved from their statement of account Ex.C7 and as such complainants are entitled to remaining claim amount of Rs.3,16,460/- for the loss of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 in their total land measuring 173 kanals 09 marlas. The op no.1 bank only is liable to pay the remaining said claim amount of Rs.3,16,460/- to the complainants as it wrongly uploaded the detail of complainant no.1 on portal and as such op no.2 insurance companies is not liable to pay any other claim amount to the complainants because op no.2 insurance company has already paid claim amount to the complainants on the basis of loss in village Panniwala Mota as uploaded by op no.1 bank on the portal. 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.
11. 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.3,16,460/- to the complainants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainants will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.3,16,460/- 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.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainants within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua ops no.2 and 4 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: 12.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
