BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 11 of 2021.                                                             

                                                        Date of Institution :    15.01.2021.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    04.08.2023.

Sunil aged 40 years son of Shri Hari Singh, resident of village Nahrana, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa..

                                ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

HDFC Bank Ltd., Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa Branch, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.

...…Opposite party.

            Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

BEFORE:  SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT                          

                 MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.                                     

Present:       Sh. M. K. Singla, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. J.R. Garwa, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as Op).

2.       In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist and is owner of land measuring 67 kanals comprised in Khewat No. 30/36 situated in village Nahrana, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013. That complainant has raised crop loan of Rs.10,00,000/- under Kissan Credit Limit facility from op against his land and as per policy of the Government, the op had to get the crops of complainant insured with some insurance company under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna scheme. It is further averred that in Kharif 2017 season the complainant had sown cotton crop in his 65 kanals of land which remained below than the threshold yield as threshold yield of cotton crop of village Nahrana for Kharif, 2017 was 607.14 kgs. per hectare but the average yield of cotton crop of village Nahrana remained 390.75 Kgs. per hectare and as such complainant was/is entitled to get claim amount for the loss of his cotton crop. That other loanee farmers of village received claim amount in June, 2018 but complainant did not get any claim amount. The complainant met with the officials of the bank and inquired about non payment of loss amount to him whereupon initially the complainant was told that his claim will be settled and received very shortly but in January, 2019 he was told that his cotton crop in Kharif 2017 season was not got insured with any insurance company and in this manner there was gross negligence on the part of op and op has committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and has caused unnecessary harassment to him. It is further averred that complainant is entitled to claim amount of Rs.81,000/- from opposite party alongwith interest besides compensation for harassment and also litigation expenses and delay if any in filing the present complaint has been caused due to complete lockdown in year 2020 due to spread of Corona Virus disease. Hence, this complaint.

 3.      On notice, op appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections that complaint is neither maintainable nor sustainable in the eyes of law as per facts of the complaint. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement as his account became NPA (Non-Performing Assets) overdue. Despite agreed upon that complainant (Loanee) maintain his account regularly it became NPA since 25.06.2015 to 4.5.2017 as he did not deposit any installments and interest of the loan amount. The complainant was bound to pay the installments alongwith interest as per the loan documents and agreement for the crop loan account number 50200005158591. It is further submitted that a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act was also instituted against the complainant for his pre-existing liability to repay the loan amount. As such complainant was not deserving for the remittance of the insurance premium for the Kharif 2017 crop as alleged by complainant.  The other preliminary objections regarding no consumer dispute, no locus standi and cause of action, estoppal, complaint is hopelessly time barred and suppression of true and material facts have also been taken. It is also submitted that there are certain terms and conditions laid down in the Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna Scheme launched by the Prime Minister of India, the farmer cannot get the benefit of his own wrongs. As the complainant did not deposit the installments etc. as per loan agreement as such he precluded himself for getting the benefit of this scheme. On merits also, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated, the contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.       The complainant in evidenced has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C1, statement of account Ex.C2, pass book Ex.C3 and report of the Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa as Ex.C4.

5.       On the other hand, op has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sourabh Mehta, Assistant Manager as Ex. RW1/A, statement of account Ex.R1 and authorization/ declaration and undertakings Ex.R2.

6.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

7.       The complainant has claimed insurance claim amount for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 from the opposite party bank as op has not got insured his crop from any insurance company and in this regard complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of op bank. The plea taken by op bank regarding non insuring of said crop of complainant has no substance and is without any merit because as per its own plea of the bank, the loan account of complainant remained as NPA from 25.06.2015 to 04.05.2017 whereas the insurance premium for insurance of kharif crop, 2017 was to be deducted up to 31.07.2017 by which time the loan account of the complainant became regular as overdue loan amount was recovered on 15.05.2017 as per statement of account of complainant Ex.C2. Further more, the op bank also deducted subsequent premium amount of Rs.5126/- for insurance of kharif crop of 2018 of complainant meaning thereby that after 15.05.2017 the loan account of complainant was regular. As per operational guidelines of PMFBY, the insurance of crops of loanee farmer was compulsory at that time and op bank has not placed on file any term and condition laid down in the said scheme whereby the bank did not get insured the crop of complainant for the kharif season of 2017. Even as per affidavit of Assistant Manager of op bank Ex.RW1/A, account of complainant became NPA as he did not deposit any amount against the loan since 25.06.2015 to 04.05.2017 meaning thereby that after 04.05.2017 the account of complainant became regular and therefore, op bank was under legal liability as per operational guidelines of PMFBY to insure the crop of complainant of kharif, 2017 after deducting premium amount from his account. Further more, it has also been specified in the operational guidelines of PMFBY in clause no. 17.4.1 that loan disbursing bank branch/ PACS shall finance additional loan equal to the premium amount payable by farmer for crop insurance. The scheme of crop insurance has been launched by the Government of India for betterment of farmers i.e. for providing financial support to farmers suffering crop loss/ damage arising out of unforeseen events. Moreover, the land measuring 65 kanals was already mortgaged with the op bank and as such security by way of land of complainant was already with the op bank. Further, the op bank has not placed on file anything to prove that any proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act were got initiated by op bank against the complainant. Further more, it is also proved on record that at the relevant time i.e. for insurance of crop of kharif, 2017, the account of complainant was not NPA. Even if for the sake of arguments the version of op bank is believed to be true that at the relevant time of insurance, the account of complainant was NPA even than as the land was already mortgaged with the op bank, the op bank could insure the crop of complainant by crediting the premium amount at its own to any insurance company as the scheme was compulsory for loanee farmers and bank has to secure its loan amount and also to prevent any loss to the loanee farmer in case of damage of his crop and as per above said clause, the bank was also to finance premium amount.  All the above aspects go to show that op bank remained deficient in service by not insuring the kharif crop of complainant of 2017 and therefore, op bank is liable to pay claim amount of the loss of cotton crop of complainant, if any. Though op bank has also placed on file declaration and undertaking of complainant as Ex.R2 in which it is mentioned that he is not interested in incurring expenditure on crop insurance premium but said document is an undated document and it is not clear that for which year the said declaration and undertaking pertains and as such same is not helpful to op bank.

8.       Now we assess the loss of the complainant for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. As per report of the Deputy Director, Agriculture department, Sirsa Ex.C4, the average yield of cotton crop of village Nahrana in Kharif, 2017 was 390.75 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of cotton crop of block Nathusari Chopta was 607.14 kgs. per hectare and as the average yield was less than threshold yield, therefore, as operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2017. The complainant has claimed that he had sown cotton crop in 65 kanals of land which is equal to 3.29 hectare and as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.80,908/- from the op bank.

9.       In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party bank to pay claim amount of Rs.80,908/- 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 amount of Rs.80,908/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op 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. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced:                             Member                          President,

Dated: 04.08.2023.                                               District Consumer Disputes

JK                                                                              Redressal Commission, Sirsa.