Haryana

Karnal

CC/488/2019

Shabeg Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Sharma

12 Jan 2022

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No. 488 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.01.08.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 12.01.2022

 

Shabeg Singh son of Bakshish Singh, resident of village Bahlolpur Mushtarka Block Nissing Post office Ballu, District Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Manager, Canara Bank Kachwa, District Karnal.

2.     Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. SCO no.388-389 1^st floor, B.D. International, Karan Commercial Complex, Old Mugal Canal, Karnal.

3.     Deputy Director of Agriculture Department Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Rakesh Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Manoj Kumar Sachdeva, counsel for OP no.1.

                    Shri Naveen Kheterpal counsel for OP no.2

                    Shri Surinder Kumar, Project Officer of OP no.3.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is having six and half acres of land in village Bahlolpur and he has obtained an agriculture loan under KCC facility from OP no.1. Under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna OP no.1 had been debiting the insurance premium in the account of the complainant in every season as well as in the year 2018 also. The complainant had sown paddy crop in his six and half acres of land in the year 2018 but there was heavy rainfall in the area of the complainant, water accumulated/stagnated in the crop and the crop of the complainant was badly damaged. Complainant moved an application before the Agriculture Department within 48 hours for inspection of his damaged crop. Agriculture Department and insurance company surveyed the damaged crop of the complainant.  Insurance company i.e. OP no.2 has refused to pay the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground that there is no insurance with OP no.2. Complainant lodged the complaint with Agriculture Department in this regard. On enquiry, it was found that after deduction of premium amount of insurance, OP no.1 due to mistake has uploaded the description of land of complainant at village Pundrak instead of village Behlolpur Mushterka while uploading the form of the complainant on Government portal. Due to this reason OP no.2 flatly refused to pay any compensation to the complainant. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that after deduction of premium amount under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 sent premium in the account of insurance company, so there is no fault on the part of the bank/OP no.1. The insurance company has not returned the premium amount of policy to the bank if any discrepancies were thereon. So, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation if any to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 in his written version pleaded that as the Actual Yield (AY) kilogram/hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy (irrigated) in village:- Pundrak. Hence, complainant is not liable for any claim as per Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) guideline. It is further pleaded that 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, as the Actual Yield kilogram/Hectare was more than Threshold Yield Kilogram/Hectare for crop:- paddy in village Pundrak, which is respectively crop insured by and insurance unit of complainant, the complainant is entitled to get the benefit under the policy.

Crop         District    Village         Farmer        Actual        Threshold    Claim

                                                  Type             Yield         Yield 

                                                            (AY)         (TY)

Paddy                Karnal        Pundrak         -             3670.23    3189.78          0

                       

 

Based upon the calculation of the claim Rs.0, Hence the complainant are not liable for any compensation.

4.              It is further pleaded that complainant has not submitted before this Commission correct, factual position of the matter, details of his agriculture land and coverage available to him under PMFBY Scheme and also Actual Yield. Since the complainant has suppressed relevant important materials information from this Commission, the complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             OP no.3 in his reply stated that complainant is having six acres of agriculture land in village Bahlolpur. According to complainant, he has obtained crop loan from OP no.1. OP no.1 deducted the premium for the kharif crop 2018. The crop of the complainant was badly damaged. Complainant moved the application before Agriculture Department within 48 hours for inspection of the damaged crop. Agriculture Department inspected the damaged crop of complainant but insurance company has refused to pay the claim of complainant. Complainant has lodged the complaint with Agriculture Department in this regard. On enquiry, it was found that after deduction of premium amount of insurance, OP no.1 due to mistake has uploaded the description of land of complainant at village Pundrak instead of village Behlolpur Mushterka while uploading the form of the complainant on Government portal. Due to this reason insurance company has not paid the claim to the complainant. Under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna vide notification no.2979-Agri-II(i)-2018/16760 dated 19.11.2018 clause 19 (xxv) only bank is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant. There is no fault on the part of the OP no.3. Hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP no.3.

6.             The parties then led their respective evidence.

7.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of letter dated 17.07.2019 Ex.C1, statement of account Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 11.06.2020 by suffering separate statement.

8.             In additional evidence complainant tendered into evidence damage report Ex.C3 and closed the additional evidence on 30.09.2021,

9.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashish Toor Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A, statement of account Ex.OP1, Haryana Government Notification dated 30.03.2018 Ex.OP2, minutes of meeting dated 02.07.2019 Ex.OP3, minutes of meeting dated 11.09.2019 Ex.OP4, application form of loan Ex.OP5, mutation of agriculture of land in favour of bank Ex.OP6, registered mortgaged deed dated 06.02.2013 Ex.OP7, operational guidelines Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on 19.04.2021 by suffering separate statement.

10.           OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Arvind Singh Naruka Ex.RW1/A, copy of inland letter Ex.R1, copy of actual yield and threshold sheet Ex.R2, screen shot of Government Portal Ex.R3, copy of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna guidelines Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 11.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

11.           OP no.3 did not lead any evidence.

12.           We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

13.           Learned counsel for complainant while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant has obtained an agriculture loan from the OP No.1 under scheme of KCC facility and mortgaged his agriculture land. Under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 had been debiting the insurance premium from the account of the complainant in every season. Due to heavy rainfall in the area of the complainant, the crop of the complainant was badly damaged. Complainant moved an application before the Agriculture Department for inspection of his damaged crop. Agriculture Department and insurance company surveyed the damaged crop of the complainant. Insurance company i.e. OP no.2 has refused to pay the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground that there is no insurance with OP no.2. On enquiry, it was found that after deduction of premium amount of insurance, OP no.1 due to mistake has uploaded the description of land of complainant at village Pundrak instead of village Behlolpur Mushterka on government portal. The complainant requested the OPs several times to make the payment of compensation, but they failed to pay the same. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

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

15.           Learned counsel for OP no.2 while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that as per the PMFBY: Actual Yield (AY) kilogram/hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare then the farmers liable for compensation but in the present case the Actual Yield (AY) 3670.23 kilogram/hectare was more than TY 3189.78 kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy in village Pundark, hence the complainant is not liable for compensation. He further argued that all the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claim has been 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. He further argued that as per Ex.R3 i.e. screen short of portal, the name of village is mentioned as Pundark by OP no.1 instead of village Behlolpur Mushtarka, and there is no loss in village Pundrak, hence the claim of the complainant was rightly declined. Thus, there is no fault on the part of the insurance company and OP no.2 is not liable for the wrong act committed by OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

16.           It is proved fact on record that complainant is an agriculturist and is having his agriculture land in village Behlolpur Mushtarka and had obtained crop loan from OP no.1, which fact is also proved from copy of application-cum-appraisal form for KCC scheme Ex.OP5, placed on file by OP no.1. OP no.1 (bank) had deducted premium amount for insurance of crop on behalf of OP no.2 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, as is evident from copy of statement of account Ex.C2/Ex.OP1 and particulars were uploaded on the portal by OP no.1. The complainant has alleged that his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018 was completely damaged but he did not receive any compensation from insurance company.

17.           The OP no.1 bank has also pleaded that after deduction of premium amount from the account of complainant by OP no.1, same was remitted in the account OP no.2. The OP no.2 insurance company has also not denied the fact that it did not receive any premium amount for insuring the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. So, it is duly proved on record that OP no.2 received insurance premium amount of Rs.4862.31 from banker of complainant i.e. OP no.1 on behalf of complainant for insuring the paddy crop of complainant of kharif, 2018.

18.           In so far as loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 is concerned, the complainant has specifically stated that in Kharif, 2018 season his crop in six & half acres of land was damaged due to water logging due to heavy rain and he moved an application to the agriculture department within 48 hours of loss of crop. He has also stated that agriculture department and insurance company inspected/ surveyed his damaged crop but insurance company denied to pay any compensation/claim to him while saying that there is no loss in village Pundrak. The complainant in order to prove damage to his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018 has also placed on record copy of inspection report Ex.C3 conducted by agricultural department and representative of insurance company which reveals that on 06.10.2018 agriculture department and representative of insurance company inspected the field of complainant in his presence and found that his paddy crop in 6.5 acres of land was damaged due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report Ex.C3 that paddy crop of complainant in 6.5 acres of land in village Behlolpur Mushtarka was damaged and he suffered loss on account of damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The op no.2 has not paid claim amount to the complainant on the ground that as the actual yield was more than threshold yield in village Pundrak, therefore, complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The op no.1 has also placed on file copy of its email dated 17.7.2019 Ex.C1 according to which name of village of farmer is Bahlolpur Mushtarka and the crop village on the GOI portal is Pundrak and as such there is mismatch of the village name. In the portal ID, the area of crop insured of complainant has been shown in village Pundrak instead of village Behlolpur Mushtarka as is evident from document Ex.R3 and as such OP no.1 has taken stand that crop of complainant in village Behlolpur Mushtarka is not insured with it. No doubt, the OP no.1 bank has wrongly uploaded the name of the village of complainant, but according to clause 19 (xxii) of Haryana Government Agriculture & Welfare Department Notification dated 30.3.2018 placed on file by OP no.1 as Ex.OP2, the insurance company is to 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. OP no.2 cannot take such plea that there is mismatch of the village name of the complainant as there is nothing on file to prove the fact that OP no.2 insurance company verified the data of the complainant as provided by the OP no.1 independently and sought any correction and OP no.2 has retained the premium amount of complainant and has not refunded the same to the complainant due to mismatch of village name of complainant. Moreover, OP no.1 bank has also relied upon copy of the minutes of the meeting to discuss the pending dispute of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) held on 02.07.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri Ajit Bala Ji Joshi, IAS Director General Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana as Ex.OP3 and in the said meeting it was resolved that cases where farmers record mismatch and premium paid by Banks to insurance company on time, whereas insurance company not returned premium to bank in time, insurance company will pay the claim to farmers as per farmer record.  Furthermore, on 11.09.2019 a meeting was also convened under the Chairmanship of Shri D.K. Jain, Zonal Manager (PNB) & Convener SLBC Haryana to discuss the pending disputes cases for claim settlement of PMFBY in view of the decision taken by Sh. Ajit Balaji Joshi, IAS, Director General Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Haryana in the meeting held on 02.07.2019 and in the said meeting held on 11.09.2019, it was asked that the above decision taken by Shri Ajit Balaji Joshi, IAS Director General Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Haryana in the meeting held on 02.07.2019 shall be final and must be implemented by all the stakeholders of the PMFBY scheme. In these circumstances, in the present case, the insurance company OP no.2 which has retained the premium amount of complainant for insuring paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 and has not returned the premium amount to bank in time, is liable to pay insurance claim for the damage of crop to the complainant and the plea of OP no.1 that actual yield was more than threshold yield in village Pundrak is not relevant. Furthermore, the OP no.2 has also not proved by cogent and convincing evidence that actual yield of village of complainant i.e. Bahlolpur Mushtarka was more than the threshold yield. Whereas complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of insurance company OP no.2 inspected the field of complainant and confirmed about the loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. Therefore, OP no.2 cannot go back and cannot avoid its liability when its representative has already found loss to the crop of complainant.  So, the insurance company OP no.2 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, no liability of OPs no.1 and 3 is made out.

19.           Now, we observe the entitlement of the complainant regarding claim amount for the damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant had sown paddy crop in six and half acres of land and as per above said report Ex.C3, complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 93.3% of his crop in his above said land. During the course of arguments, complainant has also placed on record copy of email dated 14.12.2021 of OP no.2 in which it is clearly mentioned that in Kharif, 2018 there was loss of 93% of crop. In the year 2018, the farmers received approximately amount of Rs.29,750/- per acre for their paddy crop and as such complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.27,668/- per acre (after deduction of 7% amount from 29,750) and for his six and half acres of land, he is entitled to total amount of Rs.1,79,842/- as claim amount from OP no.2 insurance company.

20.           In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint qua OP no.2 and direct OP no.2 to pay the above said amount of Rs.1,79,842/- alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of present complaint till its actual realization. We further direct OP no.2 to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complaint against ops no.1 and 3 stand dismissed.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Dated:12.01.2022

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)            (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                        Member