BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 192 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 23.08.2021.
Date of Decision : 26.04.2024.
Lekh Raj @ Lekh Ram, aged about 55 years son of Shri Mani Ram, resident of 109, village Mangaliya, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. ICICI Bank Ltd., Branch Anaj Mandi, Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Insurance Company, particulars to be disclosed by the op no.1, with which the crops of complainant was insured.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Mini Secretariat Sirsa, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ashish Singla, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 already given up.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant 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 complainant is that he is an agriculturist and is having 59 kanals 04 marlas of land situated in village Mangalia, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2017-18. He has availed Kissan credit card facility from op no.1 on his above said land through account number 359751000053 since long. That as per crop insurance scheme, the op no.1 bank has been regularly deducted the premium from the aforesaid account of complainant. It is further averred that on 25.07.2017 a sum of Rs.11,316/- and on 29.12.2017 a sum of Rs.7141.50 was deducted a spremium for insurance of his crops. Thereafter, on 31.07.2018 an amount of Rs.29,520/- was deducted as premium for insurance of crop of Kharif, 2018 and on 31.12.2018 an amount of Rs.8179.50 was deducted as premium for insurance of Rabi crop of 2018-19. Then on 12.107.2019 an amount of Rs.12,562/- was deducted as crop insurance premium of Kharif, 2019 and on 10.12.2019 a sum of Rs.7749/- was deducted as crop insurance premium of Rabi 2019-20. It is further averred that complainant had sown crop of cotton in Kharif, 2020 which was destroyed on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and as such complainant is entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre. That complainant in the month of October, 2020 contacted the op no.1 in this regard to get the details of insurance particulars to submit his claim with op no.3 but he was surprised when he was told by officials of op no.1 that insurance premium for crop of Kharif, 2020 has not been deducted from his account. That complainant further came to know that on 01.06.2020 the crop insurance premium amount of Rs.12,562.40 which was deducted on 12.07.2019 for crop insurance of kharif, 2019 has also been refunded to the account for the reason best known to op no.1. It is further averred that however thereafter on 29.12.2020 crop insurance premium of Rs.7902.50 for Rabi 2020-21 and on 26.07.2021 crop insurance premium of Rs.35105.02 for Kharif 2021 has also been deducted by op no.1 from the aforesaid account of complainant but negligently and in a careless manner the op no.1 did not deduct the premium for insurance of crop of Kharif, 2020. That complainant made representations to the op no.1 in this regard and moved an application dated 18.05.2021 for collection of certain details but op no.1 did not respond to the same. That later on complainant made a complaint to op no.1 through email etc. and surprisingly the op no.1 vide its reply dated 08.07.2021 through email informed him that the premium of Rs.33433.45 could not be deducted because interest for October, 2020 and April, 2021 is still pending to be recovered. The bank further informed that crop insurance claim has been rejected as the name of the account holder as mentioned in the account is Lekh Ram whereas it is Lekh Raj in the aadhar card. This reply on the part of the bank is totally misleading and is against the factual position and further shows negligence in services on the part of the bank because firstly the insurance premium was to be deducted in the month of July, 2020 and by that time the interest for October, 2020 and April, 2021 was not due. It is further averred that so far as the difference in names is concerned, the aadhar card of complainant is properly linked with the account of complainant and was supplied to the bank at the time of submitting the KYC form to op no.1 and op no.1 was duty bound to enter the name of complainant in their records properly as per aadhar card and complainant is not at fault in this regard. That complainant approached the ops and requested for the claim of damages to his crops but ops flatly refused to entertain any such claim of complainant and as such they have caused deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops no.1 and 3 appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that contents of complaint with regard to deduction of Rs.11,316/- on 25.07.2017, Rs.7441.50 on 29.12.2017, Rs.29,520/- on 31.07.2018 and Rs.8179.50 on 13.12.2018 are matter of record. As regard the deduction of amount of Rs.12,562/- it is submitted that said amount was credited/ refunded in the account of complainant on 1.6.2020. However, Kharif 2020 crop of complainant could not be got insured as the complainant was not having sufficient funds in his account for payment of premium to insurance company. It is further submitted that sanctioned limit of complainant in above loan account was Rs.14,29,010/- and the drawing power was Rs.14,29010/-. However, as on 1.6.2020 there was an outstanding amount of Rs.14,33737.07 in the above loan account of complainant which was more than the sanctioned limit. Hence, there was no limit to debit the insurance premium from the KCC account of complainant for Kharif 2020. The outstanding amount in the above loan account of complainant became as Rs.15,16,263.07 as on 31.10.2020. The complainant did not make payment of any amount in his above loan account during the period from 1.6.2020 to 31.10.2020. As per PMFBY Policy, if in the account the limit has expired or exceeded, such account is termed as ‘non standard account’ and such account will not be covered under PMFBY policy. In this case also, the loan account of complainant was termed as ‘non standard account’ due to exceeding of the limit. So, the complainant was not entitled to get the crop of Kharif 2020 insured with any insurance company. As regards deduction of Rs.35,105.02 on 26.07.2021 as insurance premium, the said amount was also refunded in the account of the complainant on 6.8.2021 as the complainant was not having sufficient funds in his loan account. That as regards the updation of aadhar details on the portal, it is the responsibility of the account holder to complete his KYC details and the bank has no role to play therein. The answering op is not liable to pay any amount as compensation to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that in view of written version of op no.1 bank, no insurance company was impleaded as op no.2 and was given up by learned counsel for complainant.
5. Op no.3 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or report of survey of loss of crop is to be prepared by op no.3 and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of op no.3 in this regard. The yield basis claims are settled by insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by op no.3 within specific time period 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 C11.
7. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R12. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Kuldeep Singh, S.O as Ex.R13 and documents Ex. R14 to Ex.R17.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, SA for op no.3 and have gone through the case file.
9. Although the op no.1 bank has taken the plea that the loan account of complainant was termed as ‘Non standard account’ due to exceeding of the limit and complainant was not having sufficient funds in his account for debiting of premium but at the same time the insurance of loanee farmers is mandatory as per operational guidelines of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna. 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. In this regard 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 agricultural land was already mortgaged with the op no.1 bank and as such security by way of land of complainant was already with the op no.1 bank and as per above said clause, the bank was also to finance premium amount. The op no.1 bank has not placed on file any clause of PMFBY which stipulates that non standard account will not be covered under PMFBY policy. The another plea of op no.1 bank that crop insurance claim has been rejected as the name of account holder as mentioned in the account is Lekh Ram whereas it is Lekh Raj in the aadhar card has also not substance because when the op no.1 bank did not insure the crop of complainant, then question of rejection of insurance claim does not arise at all. Moreover, complainant has taken a specific plea in this regard that his aadhar card is properly linked with his account and as such it was the duty of op no.1 bank to enter the name of complainant in its record properly as per aadhar card and as such op no.1 bank is also deficient in service in this regard. Therefore, it is proved on record that there is deficiency in service on the part of op no.1 bank as it failed to discharge its duty and has failed to get insured the cotton crop of complainant of the Kharif, 2020 season which was mandatory and as such op no.1 bank is liable to pay claim amount, if any to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2020. In this regard, op no.3 has placed on file report of Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare department, Sirsa as Ex. R5 according to which the average yield of cotton crop of village Mangalia was 187.70 Kgs. per hectare whereas threshold yield of block Rania was 294.466 kgs. per hectare and as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2020. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in 2020 was Rs.81,545/- per hectare as is evident from Haryana Govt. notification dated 15.07.2020 Ex. R12. From the Khasra girdawari Ex.C6, it is evident that complainant had sown cotton crop in his 28 Kanals 39 marlas of land. So as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.42,500/- from op no.1 bank for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2020.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua op no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 bank to pay insurance claim amount of Rs.42,500/- 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.42,500/- from op no.1 bank alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op no.1 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said period. However, complaint qua op no.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
Dt. 26.04.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
