BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.      
Consumer Complaint no. 65 of 2020. Date of Institution :    04.02.2020.
Date of Decision :    28.03.2024.
Vinod Kumar (aged about 42 years) son of Bhagirath son of Mukh Ram, resident of village Mammer Khera, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa (Haryana). 
                      ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank Limited, Sirsa Road, Rania Branch, District Sirsa (Haryana), through its Branch Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited., Opposite Janta Bhawan, Sirsa (Haryana) through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa. 
...…Opposite parties.
            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended        under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anil Bansal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. J.R. Garva, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, 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 the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2.          In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist and is presently owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 19 acres 01 kanals ( as detailed in para no.1 of the ocmplaint) situated in village Mammer Khera, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. He has availed KCC limit facility from op no.1 on his above said land vide his account no. 50200006229936. That on 04.12.2018 amount of Rs.7630.88 was deducted as insurance premium for insurance of his wheat crop of Rabi, 2018-2019 by op no.1 from above account of complainant and op no.1 got insured said crop from op no.2 under collaboration scheme as premium of insurance was transferred to op no.2 but no policy was supplied to him. It is further averred that wheat crop of Rabi 2018-19 of complainant was damaged on account of hail storm in village Mammer Khera and he has become entitled to get compensation on account of damages caused to his crop to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per acre and some of farmers have already received compensation within a short period of time, but however, ops flatly refused to entertain the complainant on this matter. That in this ways ops are gross negligent and have caused deficiency in service as well as unnecessary harassment to the complainant and complainant is entitled to claim amount of Rs.1,91,520/- alongwith interest besides compensation for harassment and also litigation expenses from ops. 
3.           On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections. It is submitted that Government notification about insurance of crop is subject to certain terms and conditions. It is incorrect that complainant is KCC account holder of HDFC Bank. The HDFC Bank has remitted the insurance premium of Rs.7630.87 to the Oriental Insurance Company op no.2 for insurance of wheat crop of Rabi 2018-19 pertaining to loan account no. 50200006229936 and as such bank is not liable to pay any compensation as alleged. It is further submitted that moreover, no record pertaining to the damage of alleged crop is appended with the complaint. All other contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made. 
4.             Op no.2 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, non intimation, non submission of proof of loss or weather report, limited coverage as per scheme, yield basis claims are decided by the Government, no survey no quantification of lass, no privity of contract, non impleading of necessary parties etc. On merits, it is submitted that it is not an individual insurance policy like other insurance policies rather it is a group insurance scheme in accordance with agreed terms and conditions of scheme, which are binding on all concerned related to the scheme and all the necessary information and required documents may be collected by any Govt. agency/ Bank/ Insurance portal etc. and supplied to the concerned insurance company. It is further submitted no premium whatsoever was remitted to the op no.2 by op no.2 HDFC Bank i.e. Nodal Bank of complainant. Had the premium been remitted to the answering op by op no.1, crop of complainant would have been insured and his account particulars for the purpose of insurance would have been uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal of PMFBY by the nodal bank i.e. HDFC Bank. But his account particulars were not uploaded on the portal. Thus, the crop of the complainant was not insured with answering op, he is not entitled to get any compensation from answering op and op no.1 being negligence is responsible and liable to pay the compensation etc. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 prayed for. 
5.             Op no.3 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or survey of loss of crop is to be made/ done by answering op and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of the answering op in this regard. It is further submitted that yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by answering op within specific time period as prescribed in the operational guidelines of the Government of India. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.  
6.          The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4. 
7.         On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Puja Tapwal. Incharge as Ex.R1, relevant clauses of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R2 and copy of minutes of meeting dated 14.01.2021 Ex.R3. Op no.1  has tendered affidavit of Sh. Gaganpal Singh, GPA/ Assistant Manager (Legal) as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R4  and Ex.R5. Op no.3 has also tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R6 and documents Ex.R7 and Ex.R8. 
8.         We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.3 and have gone through the case file.
9.         As per village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY, for Rabi 2018-2019 Ex.R8 placed on file by op no.3, the average yield of wheat crop of village Mamar Khera was 3556.57 Kgs. per hectare whereas the average yield of wheat crop of block was 5345.04 and as such as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was also loss to the wheat crop of complainant in Rabi 2018-2019. The sum insured amount of wheat crop in Rabi 2018-2019 was Rs.66,500/- per hectare as is evident from Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018 Ex.R7. A formula has also given in the operational guidelines for calculation of loss and as per the said formula, the loss of the wheat crop of Rabi 2018-2019 in his 19 acres 01 kanal of land comes to Rs.1,72,000/-. Though, Sh. Gaganpal Singh, Assistant Manager of op no.1 bank has stated in his affidavit Ex. RW1/A that an amount of Rs.1,50,001.2 has been given by insurance company which was credited in the account of complainant in two different installments i.e. on 18.11.2019 and 26.02.2020 and if the amount is meager in the eyes of complainant, then insurance company is liable to pay the remaining amount to the complainant, but however, from the perusal of statement of account placed on file by op no.1 bank itself as Ex.R4 it is revealed that on 18.11.2019 an amount of Rs.25,087.70 and on 26.02.2020 further amount of Rs.1,24,913.50 was credited in the account of complainant as crop insurance amount for Kharif, 2018 and not for wheat crop of Rabi 2018-19. The op no.1 bank has also failed to prove through any cogent and convincing evidence that data of complainant farmer was uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal of PMFBY and as such as per the plea of op no.2, since particulars were not uploaded on the portal, the wheat crop of complainant of Rabi 2018-2019 was not insured with op no.2 and as such op no.1 bank is liable to pay the above said claim amount of Rs.1,72,000/- to the complainant for the loss of his wheat crop of Rabi 2018-2019 because as per clause 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY in case 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. As data of complainant was not uploaded on the portal, therefore, complainant did not receive any claim amount from op no.2 since his wheat crop was not insured with op no.2 and as such op no.1 only is responsible and liable for the payment of above said amount to the complainant. 
10.           Keeping in view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua op no.1 bank and direct the opposite party no.1 bank to pay above said amount of Rs.1,72,000/- 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 above said amount of Rs.1,72,000/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op no.1 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as 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 President,
Dated: 28.03.2024.                 District Consumer Disputes
          Redressal Commission, Sirsa.