BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 82 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 06.02.2020.
Date of Decision : 26.09.2023.
Kamlesh Kumar, aged about 51 years son of Shri Jai Kishan, resident of House No. 778, Village Jamal, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch Office at Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa Near LIC Building Sirsa. 2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Head Branch Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi- 110002.
3. Manager/ Authorized person, Agriculture department office at old Tehsil Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant that he is an agriculturist having agriculture land in village Jamal, District Sirsa. That complainant has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on his 17 acres of land through account number 50200009948572. It is further averred that on 31.07.2018 premium amount of Rs.9678.80 was deducted by op no.1 from the above account of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of kharif, 2018 with op no.2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and as such his cotton crop of kharif, 2018 was insured but no copy of insurance policy was supplied to him despite his request. That crop of kharif, 2018 of complainant was destroyed on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and as such complainant is entitled to get compensation on account of damages to his crops to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per acre but none of ops paid any amount to the complainant despite his several requests, visits and applications and as such ops have caused harassment and deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version submitting therein that bank has debited the amount of Rs.9676.80 from the account of complainant on 31.07.2018 and has credited the same to the account of op no.2 as premium of insurance. All the information required by op no.2 was sent to the insurance company as per rules. The policy no. 040106181151533072401 was issued by op no.2. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of answering op and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per record of answering op, the area of village Kutiana belonging to the present complainant was uploaded on the portal and a sum of Rs.9678.80 was remitted to the answering op as insurance premium for the crop of village Kutiana and not of village Jamal and as such as per State level Grievance Committee meeting and as per guidelines of PMFBY, the concerned bank is liable to pay the compensation to the concerned farmers. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. Op no.3 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or survey of loss of crop is to be prepared by answering op which has been prepared by answering op and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6.
7. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Virender Kumar, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R1 and copies of documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sourabh Mehta, Assistant Manager as Ex.R5 and statement of account Ex.R6. OP no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R7 and documents Ex.R8 and Ex.R9.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.
9. It is proved on record by op no.2 insurance company through document Ex.R2 i.e. insurance details of farmers that land of complainant was shown in village Kutiana by op no.1 bank whereas complainant is having his land in village Jamal and not in village Kutiana. In so far as loss of cotton crop of kharif, 2018 of complainant in his land situated in village Jamal is concerned, the op no.3 who is liable to conduct survey of the loss of crops has placed on file village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during kharif, 2018 as Ex.R9 according to which the average yield of cotton crop of kharif, 2018 of village Jamal was 394.35 Kgs. per hectare and the threshold yield of cotton crop of kharif, 2018 of block of village Jamal was 462.26 kgs. per hectare. Since the average yield of village Jamal was less than threshold yield of block, therefore, as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was also loss to some extent to the cotton crop of complainant in kharif, 2018 in his land situated in village Jamal. However, from the said document, it cannot be said that there was total loss to the cotton crop of kharif, 2018 of complainant. As per notification of Haryana Govt. dated 30.03.2018 placed on file by op no.3 as Ex.R8, the sum insured of cotton crop was Rs.72,000/- per hectare and as such as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.72,772/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2018 in his 17 acres of land which is equal to 6.88 hectare. Since, it is proved on record that op no.1 bank wrongly uploaded the name of land of village of complainant as Kutiana instead of Jamal, therefore, as per clause 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the op no.1 bank is only liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.72,772/- to the complainant. In this regard 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 to them. 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 also 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 said judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission Haryana is also applicable in this case.
10. In view of our above discussion, we partly allow this complaint qua opposite party no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 bank to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.72,772/- to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in village Jamal 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 above said amount of Rs.72,772/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment from op no.1 bank. 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. However, complaint qua ops no.2 and 3 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
Dt. 26.09.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
