Haryana

Kaithal

97/21

Dharam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.G.S Rana

13 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 97 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:   05.04.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:      13.05.2024.

 

Dharam Singh s/o Shri Nandu s/o Shri Albela, r/o village Kaul, Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                      Versus

 

1. The Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, Booth No.122, near Grain Market, Nigdhu, District Karnal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department, Kaithal Office at Room No.305, Secretariat, Kaithal.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri G.S. Rana, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri A.K. Khurania, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Sudeep Malik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

                   Shri Sunil Kumar, Rep. for Opposite Party No.3.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

          Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the OPs.

2.                The complainant alleged that he is an agriculturist by profession having agriculture land measuring 45 kanal 2 marla in village Kaul. That he was also having an account bearing No.210451000116 in the branch of OP No.1, who insured his crop under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (for short “PMFBY”) for the year khariff 2018 through OP No.2 after deducting insurance amount of Rs.15288/- on 31.07.2018 from his account. That due to untimely heavy rainfall in that area on 24.09.2018, his khariff crop was damaged completely and he reported the matter to OP No.3, who survey the damaged crop and assured that claim amount shall be paid earliest possible. That he approached the OPs various times, with a request to release the claim amount, but all in vain. The above act of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared before this Commission and filed their respective written statements

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement specifically submitted that premium amount of Rs.15288/- was debited from the KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for khariff 2019 as per PMFBY and according the same was remitted to M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as per details given below:-

Year	Season	Application ID	Farmer Name	Account No.	Insurance Co. name
2018	Khariff	0401061811 51689267601	Dharam Singh	210451000116	Oriental Insurance
Crop Name	Crop District Name	Area Insured	Farmer Share	Sum Insured
Paddy	Kaithal	10.4	15288	764400

 

                   That there is no lapse from the bank’s end in terms of uploading crop, village insurance and other details.

5.                OP No.2, in its written statement raised preliminary objections regarding No coverage of alleged loss; General Exclusions; Not maintainable for want of jurisdiction; Non intimation; Non submission of proof of loss or weather report; Limited Coverage as per scheme; Privity of Contract; Impleading of Necessary Parties; Complicated facts and law of contract; Right to file Amended reply etc. It is further submitted on merits that as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Agriculture Department (Haryana Govt.) the actual yield is more than the threshold yield, hence nothing is payable on this count and moreover the localized claim is also not payable as village level assessment of village is NIL, hence, complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

6.                OP No.3 in its written statement stated that complainant never met with OP No.3. That the present complaint has been filed by the complainant just to harass and humiliate OP No.3 and to fetch false compensation from the State of Haryana.

7.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6.

8.                On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered into evidence document Annexure R-6. OP No.2, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and document Annexure R-5. OP No.3, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession having agriculture land measuring 45 kanal 2 marla in village Kaul. He further argued that the complainant was also having an account bearing No.210451000116 in the branch of OP No.1, who insured his crop under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (for short “PMFBY”) for the year khariff 2018 through OP No.2 after deducting insurance amount of Rs.15288/- on 31.07.2018 from his account. He further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall in that area on 24.09.2018, khariff crop of complainant was damaged completely and he reported the matter to OP No.3, who survey the damaged crop and assured that claim amount shall be paid earliest possible. He further argued that the complainant approached the OPs various times, with a request to release the claim amount, but all in vain, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs.

11.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that premium amount of Rs.15288/- was debited from the KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for khariff 2019 as per PMFBY and according the same was remitted to M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

12.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Agriculture Department (Haryana Govt.) the actual yield is more than the threshold yield. Hence, nothing is payable on this count and moreover the localized claim is also not payable as village level assessment of village is NIL, as such, complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

13.              There is no dispute that the complainant is an agriculturist and having a bank account with OP No.1 bank bearing account No.210451000116, who deducted Rs.15288/- on 31.07.2018 from the said account, on account of premium for ‘PMFBY’ for khariff 2018, as is evident from Statement of Account Annexure C-5. 

14.              The grievance of the complainant is that he sown paddy crop in khariff season 2018, but due to heavy rainfall, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined, and he reported the matter to OP No.3, who inspected his fields along with officials of OP No.2 and assessed the damage to his paddy crop, but the OPs failed to release the said claim amount, to him, despite repeated requests made by him.

15.              OP No.1 bank has admitted about debiting the amount of Rs.15288/- for khariff 2018, from the account of complainant and remitted the same to OP No.2, on 31.07.2018 itself, as is evident from document Annexure R-5, which was not denied, by OP No.2 insurance company. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 has submitted that as OP No.1 bank has uploaded the wrong village name of the complainant on the Portal as Kaithal instead of Kaul, thus, the crop of complainant in village Kaul was never insured with OP No.2, during above mentioned season. In order to support his above contentions, he produced document Annexure R-5, on the case file, belonging to complainant, wherein, in the column “Village”, there is mentioned “Kaithal (MC) instead of Kaul. He further submitted that OP No.1 bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant for the loss suffered to the khariff crop of complainant for the season 2018 under PMFBY. However, it is admitted fact that land of complainant is situated in village Kaul, whereas, in document Annexure R-5, Village Name of complainant is mentioned Kaithal (MC) instead of Kaul. There is no dispute that it was the primarily duty of only OP No.1 bank to upload the data of farmer concerned, on the Government Portal regarding PMFBY scheme and from the above facts, it is evident that the complainant suffered loss to his land situated in village Kaul, but OP No.1 bank has wrongly uploaded name of his village as Kaithal (MC) instead of Kaul, on the Government Portal, about PMFBY scheme, which shifts the liability to pay the compensation amount to the complainant, from one party to another party. The above act and conduct of OP No.1 bank, amounts to grave deficiency in service, on its part.

16.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 has further contended that the OP No.1 bank is liable to pay the amount of claim, if any, to the complainant, for his own above mistake/wrong declaration. In this regard, we can rely upon “Operational Guidelines” and its Para No.17.2, is relevant, which reads as under:-

17.2            Consolidated declaration/proposal formats to be submitted physically/electronically by Nodal banks/Branches shall contain details about insurance Unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area insured of the farmers, number and category of farmers covered (small and marginal or other) and number of farmers under other categories (SC/ST/others) women along with their bank account details etc. (bank/their branches) as per the application form provided  on the National Crop Insurance Portal, Banks are required to upload the insured farmer’s data mandatorily on the National Crop Insurance Portal. No other platform shall be used for uploading/submission of farmer’s data. Those farmers whose data is uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal shall only be eligible for insurance coverage and accordingly the premium subsidy will also be released. 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”.

17.              So as per above Operational Guidelines, we found that OP No.1 bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant, for his own above mistake/wrong declaration. View of this Commission is fully supported by the case law cited (supra) by counsel for the OP No.2, in the case of State Bank of India Versus Bijender Singh & 2 Ors (NC), Revision Petition No. 1777 of 2023 (Against the Order dated 24/03/2023 in Appeal No. A/143/2021 of the State Commission Haryana), DOB 17 October, 2023, wherein, it is held that “6. It is matter of record that land of the Complainants falls in the village Siwana Mal in the District of Jind. Undeniably, the petitioner Bank by mistake remitted the premium for the area of Gangana in the District of Sonepat, on account of which the Insurance Company could not proceed further in entertaining the claim……. 8. In view of the aforesaid Guidelines governing the Insurance Scheme in question, the liability to satisfy the claim would undeniably fall upon the Petitioner-Bank, since it had wrongly remitted the premium for an entirely different area, which was far-away and totally different from the land of the complainants, where the damage had taken place. Consequently, there was no error on the part of both the Ld. For a below in thus holding the Petitioner-Bank liable to satisfy the claim of the Complainants”.

18.              During the course of arguments, learned counsel for OP No.1 bank has contended that if OP No.1 bank has uploaded wrong data/village name of complainant on the Government Portal, even then, it was required for OP No.2 insurance company to verify the data of farmers concerned, within two months of cutoff date and if any discrepancy was found therein, then it was required for OP No.2 insurance company to intimate State Government/OP No.1 bank, in this regard, within cutoff date of two months, either through email or registered post letter, but nothing such as has been done, by OP No.2 insurance company, hence, OP No.2 insurance company, for its own deficiency, is liable to pay the compensation amount, if any, to the complainant under PMFBY scheme. In order to support his above contentions, he placed reliance upon “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018” and drawn attention of this Commission towards its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii, which reads as under:-

“xxii) The Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the Insurance Company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim”.  

 

19.              So, from perusal of above Notification, it is crystal clear that it was required for OP No.2 insurance company to verify the data/information, provided/uploaded by OP No.1 bank on Govt. Portal regarding the farmers concerned, within the period of cutoff date of two months, from its uploading/providing, and if any discrepancy/mistake is found by OP No.2 in it, then intimate to Sate Government/OP No.1 bank, in this regard, within cutoff date of two months, but in the case in hand, from perusal of record, we found that OP No.2 had neither raised any objection nor intimated to OP No.1 bank regarding any discrepancy in the data of complainant, within the period of cutoff date of two months, and now when crops of complainant has been damaged/destroyed and the complainant demanded the claim amount, as per PMFBY scheme, from OP No.2, then OP No.2 refused to pay the same, on flimsy ground that OP No.1 bank has uploaded wrong village name of complainant on the Government Portal. Hence, this objection raised by the Insurance Company at a later stage will not be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim, if any, to the complainant under PMFBY. The act of OP No.2 insurance company of not paying the claim amount to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on its part. 

20.              So, keeping in view the above detailed facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that OP No.1 bank had uploaded wrong village name of complainant on the Government Portal under PMFBY scheme, and then, on coming to know this fact, OP No.2 insurance company had neither raised nor intimated this objection to OP No.1 bank, within the period of cutoff date of two months, which amounts to deficiency in service, on the part of both OPs No.1 & 2, due to which, the complainant deprived from receiving the claim amount, for the loss suffered to his crop, either from OP No.1 or from OP No.2, which certainly caused unprecedented physical harassment and mental agony to the complainant and forced him to indulge in the present litigations unnecessarily. Hence, both OPs No.1 & 2, for their above act, severally and jointly, are liable to pay the claim amount, to the complainant, for the loss suffered by him, due to destroy of his standing crops. However, it is pertinent to mention here that no doubt, as per above mentioned case law titled State Bank of India Vs. Bijender Singh & 2 Ors (cited supra), produced by OP No.2 insurance company, if OP bank had committed any mistake in uploading the whereabouts of the complainant on the Govt. Portal, then OP bank shall be liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant for his mistake, but it is pertinent to mention here that this case is silent whether the insurance company concerned had refund back the said premium amount to the insurance company/complainant, after knowing the mistake/wrong done of OP bank or not. Hence, keeping in view the above facts of the present case, this case law (mentioned above) does not fully applicable to the present case. 

21.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? In the complaint, complainant mentioned that he was having 45 kanal 2 marla of land, which has been damaged, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the crop of more than 10 acres of land of complainant was insured, which was damaged, but due to typographical mistake and oversight, 45 kanal 2 marla land has been mentioned in the first para of complaint instead of 10.5 acres of land, and prayed that compensation for 10.5 acres of land be given, to the complainant instead of 45 kanal 2 marla. This fact is also evident from written statement of OP No.1 bank, wherein, in para No.8, in the column “Area Insured”, there is mentioned “10.4”. As per document Annexure R-1, the OP No.3 Agriculture Department has assessed the claim of complainant, based on Localized Survey, to the tune of Rs.9979.20 per acre, therefore, for 10.4 acres of land, complainant is entitled the claim amount to the tune of Rs.103783.68 (Rs.9979.20 x 10.4 acres), which shall be paid, by OPs No.1 and 2, jointly and severally, to the complainant along with compensation amount + litigation expenses.

22.              Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OPs No.1 & 2 and dismiss the same against OP No.3. We direct OPs No.1 and 2, jointly and severally (in equal share of 50% each) to pay Rs.103783.68, along with compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant, within a period of 45 days, from today, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization.

23.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:13.05.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, SSS.