BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 196 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 07.09.2020.
Date of Decision : 03.06.2024.
Mahender (aged about 53 years) son of Sh. Maan Singh son of Sh. Ganga Ram, resident of village Darba Kalan, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch SRB Building, Janta Bhawan Road, 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/ Authorised 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. Mukesh Poonia, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. J.R. Garva, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER:-
The complainant has filed the present complaint 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 he is an agriculturist and is owner in possession of land measuring 32 kanals 14 marlas being 1305/2846 share of total land measuring 71 kanals 03 marlas situated in village Darba Kalan, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 and is also owner in possession of land measuring 25 kanals 11 marlas being 301/939 share of total land measuring 78 kanals 07 marlas situated in village Nahran Wali, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018. The complainant availed KCC facility from op no.1 over his land through account no. 50200010872513. It is further averred that as per crop insurance scheme on 30.07.2019 the op no.1 got insured the crop of complainant of Kharif, 2019 with op no.3 and deducted premium amount of Rs.4963.68 from the above said account of complainant. That complainant had sown cotton crop in his agricultural land situated in both the above said villages which was damaged to the extent of 100% due to natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and Agriculture department visited his fields as well as fields of other agriculturists and verified the damage to their crops and submitted its report to ops no.1 and 2. The complainant sustained the losses of Rs.3,60,000/- approximately on account of damages to his insured crop but ops have only deposited a meager amount of Rs.27,808.63 on 21.04.2020 in the bank account of complainant whereas other farmers have received compensation more than the amount as received by complainant from op no.3 and since then complainant has been making rounds to the office of ops but they are avoiding the requests of complainant and now about two days ago they have refused to admit the complainant and have caused deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Ops no.1 and 2 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that HDFC Bank has remitted the insurance premium of Rs.1853.72 to op no.3 vide policy No. 401106191011653330801 ( as per application dt. 29.08.2023) on 31.07.2019 for insurance of Kharif crop of 2019 of complainant and Rs. 3094.64 to SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy no. 40106191121771200000 on 30.07.2019 for insurance of Kharif crop of 2019 i.e. cotton crop of complainant. It is further submitted that there are operational guidelines of PMFBY that for agriculture farmer welfare the aadhar card is mandatory for enrolment by the farmers for availing the benefit of this scheme. As such detail regarding some account could not be uploaded on the portal of insurance company due to non availability of aadhar card and the amount debited in their account was not remitted to the insurance company and as such amount was kept in the sundry account. It is further submitted that mere sanctioning/ disbursement of crop loan and submitting of proposal/ declaration and remittance of premium by the farmer/ bank without explicit intent to raise the crop does not constitute acceptance of risk by insurance company. As per account statement Rs.27,808.63 on 21.04.2020 was deposited in the account of complainant. 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 and submitted that claims are payable as per the provisions of PMFBY and State Govt. notification. As per scheme provisions, the localized perils/ calamities viz. Hailstorm, landslide inundation, cloud burst and natural fire due to lightening affecting isolated farms in the notified area are available to farmers whereas the loss to crops (before harvest) due to perils like natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught are not covered under localized risks, thereby no individual claims are assessed/ payable due to such perils. Rather, the claims to standing crops/ yield losses due to non preventable risks viz. Draught, Dry Spell, Flood, Inundation, Widespread Pests and Diseases attack, landslides, fire due to natural causes, lightening, storm, hailstorm and cyclone are processed on the principle of area approach and are calculated on crop yield data (crop-wise, notified area wise) based upon requisite number of crop cutting experiments (CCEs) as per general crop estimation survey (GCES). The area approach claim of Rs.27808.63 of the complainant was included in the consolidated claim amount which was credited to the op no.1 bank on 14.04.2020 for onward credit to the farmers as per PMFBY scheme provisions as there was shortfall in the yield of cotton crop in the notified area. It is further submitted that complainant is a loanee farmer and has uploaded crop details in portal through bank op no.1 and it is specifically denied that Rs.4963/- was received as farmer’s share of premium rather as mentioned in the coverage details Rs.1853.72 was received as farmer’s share for coverage of cotton crop of complainant in 1.21 hectare of land. It is further submitted that only the cotton crop of complainant situated in village Nahranwali was covered under the PMFBY scheme and no other application of complainant farmer was found w.r.t. cotton crop situated in village Darba Kalan on the NCIP. That as per para no. 35.5.2.13 of operational guidelines of PMFBY, the banks should ensure that cultivator are not deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/ omissions/ commissions of the concerned branch/ PACS and in case of such errors, the concerned agencies shall have to make good all such losses. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.
6. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Gagan Pal Singh, Assistant Manager as Ex. RW1/A. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Jaspal Singh Khurmi, Regional Manager as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R19.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. According to op no.3 agriculture insurance company, as the premium amount of Rs.1853.72 was paid by op no.1 bank for insurance of cotton crop of complainant in his 1.21 hectare of land situated in village Naharanwali, therefore, area approach claim of Rs.27808.63 was already paid to the bank of complainant on 14.04.2020 for onward credit to the complainant as per PMFBY as threshold yield of cotton crop of block Nathusari Chopta in Kharif, 2019 was 572.4 Kgs. per hectare and actual yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 of village Naharanwali was 400.66 Kgs. per hectare. So as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the op no.3 has rightly paid the claim amount of Rs.27,808.63 to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop in 1.21 hectare of land situated in village Naharanwali and said payment is also admitted by complainant himself. The remaining premium amount of Rs.3096.64 was paid by op no.1 bank to SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. for insurance of cotton crop of complainant in 32 kanals 14 marlas of land situated in village Darba Kalan as is evident from written version of ops no.1 and 2 as well as detail placed on file by ops no.1 and 2 (though not exhibited). But however, as per clause no.3 of Haryana Govt. notification dated 24.05.2019 Ex.R9, the Sirsa District was in Cluster-I and as per clause 6 of said notification, the Cluster-I i.e. crops of land falling in the Sirsa District was to be insured with Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd and not with SBI General Insurance Company. So the ops bank have violated the said clause of notification of the Haryana Government dated 24.05.2019 and have wrongly paid premium of complainant to SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. and as such ops no.1 and 2 are liable to pay remaining claim amount to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop in his 32 kanals 14 marlas of land situated in village Darba Kalan. The op no.3 has also paid insurance claim amount for the damage of cotton crop of one Ram Kumar Poonia who was having land in village Darban Kalan and op no.3 assessed his claim as actual yield of cotton crop of village Darban Kalan in Kharif, 2019 was 313.55 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block of Nathusari Chopta was 572.40 Kgs. per hectare and as such complainant is also entitled to claim amount on the basis the other farmers of village Darban Kalan have received insurance claim for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2019. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2019 was Rs.76,600/- per hectare. So, as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.56,250/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 in his 32 kanals 14 marlas of land situated in village Darba Kalan from ops no.1 and 2 bank for the above said mistake and deficiency in service.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite parties no.1 and 2 and direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay the claim amount of Rs.56,250/- 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.56,250/- from ops no.1 and 2 alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. 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 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 Member President,
Dated: 03.06.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
