Haryana

Karnal

CC/498/2020

Parveen Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Sharma

05 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 498 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.10.11.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:05.03.2024

 

Parveen Singh aged about 34 years son of Shri Dilawar Singh, resident of house no.116, ward no.2, village Shahjanpur, tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. Aadhar card no.5087 5090 7527.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     ICICI Bank Ltd., Branch office, shop no.293-294, ward no.4, G.T. Road Gharaunda, District Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., having its Branch office at SCO no.388-389, near Guru Harkrishan School, Mugal Canal, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

3.     Deputy Director Agriculture, Department Karnal having its office at opposite old court, near Mahatma Gandhi Chowk, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Vinod Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Amish Goel, counsel for the OP no.1.

Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for OP no.2.

Shri Surender Project Officer, on behalf of OP no.3.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is maintaining a loan/advance account bearing no.359951000030 with the bank of the OP no.1. The complainant has insured his agriculture produce with the OP no.2 through OP no.1. The complainant is an agriculturist and registered owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 24 acres approximately situated in village Shahjanpur, tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. As per the policy of the Government, the crop sown by the complainant in the abovesaid land was insured by the OP no.2 through OP no.1 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The OP no.1 deducted an amount of Rs.9227.08p on 12.07.2019 from the account of complainant. The wheat crop of the complainant for the year April, 2020 as well as the crop of other inhabitants of the vicinity was damaged due to local disaster and all the farmers including the complainant had also lodged his claim under the aforesaid scheme.  The complainant has lodged his claim with the OPs and then as per prescribed rules, an sample survey report was prepared by the office of OP no.3 with the help of their subordinates in very much presence of representative of the OP no.2, in which it has been clearly mentioned that the crop of complainant has suffered 25% loss. Even after assessment of the loss, till date OP no.2 has not disbursed the amount of insurance claim in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs several times and requested for disbursement of the insurance claim but they flatly refused to disburse the same. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay the compensation of damages crop of the land of the complainant i.e. Rs.2,40,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of damage till its realization, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs etc.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; locus standi; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that Mr. Parveen Singh holding a KCC loan from ICICI bank, vide loan account no.359951000030 from ICICI Bank. Crop insurance is a regulatory requirement for all the loanee farmers as per the Operating Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and as a Bank, take a onetime authorization from all the loanee farmers for debiting the crop insurance premium basis notifications received from the insurance companies. It is further pleaded that claims are settled solely on the basis of yield data furnished by the Commissionerate of Agriculture arrived at through prescribed numbers of crop cutting experiments (CCE) conducted jointly by State Government and insurance company. Once the analysis with respect to shortfall in yield and other procedure is done for certain area, claims are released in farmer’s KCC account by insurance companies through Director beneficiaries transfer system or to all banks who had insured their farmers. The yield data will be approved/uploaded by the concerned authority/State nodal department and made available to the Insurance Companies. However, details of such CCEs are not shared with Bank in any format. It is further pleaded that complainant was compulsorily required to submit Aadhaar number/copy of aadhaar card or authenticate themselves through Aadhaar enabled e-Kyc alongwith mobile number for enrollment under the crop insurance before the prescribed cut-off date as per PMFBY guidelines point no.35.9.2. The SMS was sent to customer before beginning of season in June, 2019 (farmers who did not have their aadhar updated in bank record) and after entry was failed in September, 2019 (and before reopening of portal) to farmers where entry was not completed due to name mismatch in bank record and Aadhar. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The complainant has not suffered due to OP and hence not entitled for compensation from the OP. However, it is submitted that the complainant cannot take the benefits of his own wrong. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that OP did not receive any localize claim intimation regarding the damage of crop. Therefore, the complainant claimed assessed as per the shortage of yield basis that as the Actual Yield  (AY) kilogram/Hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/Hectare for crop: paddy (irrigated) in village-Shah Jahanpur (17). Hence the complainant not liable for any claim as per PMFBY guideline.

Crop	District	Village	Farmer type	Actual Yield AY)	Threshold yield (TY)	Claim
Paddy	Karnal	Shah Jahanpur (17)	-	3762.63	3041.82	0

 

Further, the complainant alleged that his damaged crop is wheat, whereas, policy has been issued for the coverage of paddy crop as per the information uploaded by the concerned intermediaries on the crop portal. Furthermore, as per the complaint copy the complainant/farmer name is Parveen Singh whereas as per the account no.359951000030 mentioned in complaint policy issued to Mr. Mahender. OP neither issued policy to Parveen Singh nor received the premium for himself. Therefore, the coverage is not available on issued policy. It is further pleaded that Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare is fixed for every insurance unit. Actual yield (AY) kilogram/hectare of an insurance unit is calculated by the government taking samples form respective insurance unit at the time of harvesting of the crop through crop cutting experiments (CCEs) which are conducted by State Government. All the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claims is furnished by the government and accordingly the insurance company only calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Provision of operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna vide clause XI: Assessment of loss/shortfall in yield, sub clause 10: Assessment of Claims (Wide Spread Calamities)

“If ‘Actual Yield’ (AY) per hectare of insured crop for the insurance unit (calculated on basis of requisite number of CCEs) in insured season, falls short of specified “Threshold Yield” (TY), all insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in yield of similar magnitude. PMFBY seeks to provide coverage against such contingency.

‘Claim’ shall be calculated as per the following formula:

(Threshold Yield- Actual Yield)

Threshold yield                  X Sum insured.

 

It is further pleaded that in the present case, the Actual Yield was more than Threshold Yield for crop: paddy in village-Shah Jahanpur (17). Hence, complainant is not entitled to get the benefit under the policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 in its reply submitted that complainant immediately informed agriculture Department regarding the said damages of crop and accordingly the officials of the agriculture of the insurance company got surveyed the damaged crop. The detail of the farmer not uploaded on GOI portal. This deficiency in service insurance company denied the claim. As per the operational guideline of PMFBY clause no.XVII (2) at that time, if substantial misreporting by bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concern bank only shall be liable for such misreporting.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1, copy of aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of summary of account Ex.C2, copy of jamabandi Ex.C3, copy of statement of account Ex.C4, copy of survey report Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 13.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Tarun Mehta Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of credit facility application from Ex.OP1/1 copy of statement of loan account Ex.OP1/2 and closed the evidence on 10.07.2023 by suffering separate statement. 

8.             OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai, Deputy Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R1, copy of tabulation sheet Ex.R2, copy of five year block wise average yield Ex.R2, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 21.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Project Officer Ex.OP3/A, copy of guidelines of PMFBY Ex.OP3/1, copy of survey report Ex.OP3/2  and closed the evidence on 07.06.2023 by suffering separate statement.

10.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and representative of OP no.3 and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

11.           Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is having a bank account with the OP no.1 and OP no.1 provided crop insurance, under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna through OP no.2. Complainant had sown wheat crop in his 24 acres of land and due to local disaster crop was damaged. Complainant approached the Deputy Director Agriculture in this regard. The officials of the Deputy Director Agriculture Department and representative of OPs no.1 and 2 inspected the field of complainant and assessed the loss to the extent of 25%. Complainant requested the OPs several times to make the payment of compensation but they failed to pay the same and prayed for allowing the complaint

12.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that after deduction of premium amount, under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 had remitted premium in the account of insurance company, so there is no fault on the part of the bank and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP no.1.

13.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has argued that OP neither issued policy to Parveen Singh nor received the premium for himself. Therefore, the coverage is not available on issued policyJe further argue that in the present case, the Actual Yield was more than Threshold Yield for crop: paddy in village-Shah Jahanpur (17). So, the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit under the policy and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

14.           Representative of the OP no.3 submitted that on receipt of intimation regarding the damage of crop of complainant, the officials of the agriculture of the insurance company got surveyed the damaged crop. The detail of the farmer not uploaded on GOI portal. This deficiency in service insurance company denied the claim.  As per operational guidelines of Paradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna clause no.XVII (2) at that time if substantial misreporting by bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such misreporting.

15.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

 16.          Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and the insurance premium was duly deducted from the account of the complainant by OP no.1 and this fact is also proved from the statement of account Ex.C4/Ex.OP1/2.

17.           As per the version of the complainant, his wheat crop was badly damaged due to heavy rainfall and in this regard he had intimated to OPs and applied for compensation. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant, but complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on the file to prove that the crop of the complainant has been damaged due to local disaster and complainant has intimated to the Agriculture Department as well as OPs in this regard. There is also nothing on file to prove that complainant has submitted the claim with the OPs as alleged by him. The case of the complainant is based upon the Survey Report Ex.C5. The Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee to survey the fields the farmers. The Block Agriculture Officer, Gharaunda, Kanugo and representative of insurance company surveyed the fields of the following farmers, which are as under:-

1.     Major Singh son of Surat Singh

2.     Karnail Singh son of Surat Singh

3.     Sushma Devi wife of Sanjeev Kumar

4.     Milan son of Ranbir Singh

The name of the complainant’s nowhere mentioned in the said survey report. As per the said report, the fields of the abovesaid farmers have been inspected. The said report has not been signed by the complainant. The said report is not belongs to the complainant, rather it belongs to another farmers. Moreover, complainant has also failed to place on file khasra girdwari of the land to prove that he has sown the wheat crop in his field. Furthermore, as per insurance policy, the insured crop is paddy and complainant sought the claim of wheat crop. Thus, it proves from the said report that the fields of the complainant have not been surveyed by the Committee constituted by the Agriculture Department. Thus, in view of the above, the survey report is not helpful to the complainant and complainant has failed to prove his case.

18.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:05.03.2024

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Suman Singh)

                    Member                               Member