District Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.368/2021.
Date of Institution: 29.07.2021.
Date of Order:12.07.2022.
Sarvar Singh S/o lt. Sh. Sukha Singh, R/o Village – Badarpur Syed, Faridabad, Haryana – 121101.Aadhar No. 367306539285
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Plate B & C, 5th floor, Office Block 1, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi – 110 023.
2. Agriculture Department and Farmer Welfare, Room NO. 602, 6th floor, Mini Secretariat, Sector-12, Faridabad, Haryana – 121007.
3. Punjab National Bank, Branch Tigaon, Faridabad – 121101, through Manager/Dealing Clerk.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: AmitArora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Jitender Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. JitenderKaushik, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Amit Kumar, Project Officer PMFBY on behalf of opposite party No.2.
ShriBhagat Singh, counsel for opposite party No.3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was crop wheat in his 12 acres agriculture land on 10.11.2019 situated in above said address and got his crop insured on December through Prqadhan MantriFasal BimaYojana, by opposite party No.1. The amount of insurance was deducted on 12.12.2019from the complainant account No. 7405008800000567 in Tigaon branch, Faridabad. The complainant crop came due to heavy rain and heavy hailstorm which caused heavy damage to the standing crop on 14.03.2020 at around 4p.m. The complainant had informed the opposite party No.2 at 4.30pm on the same evening about the damage caused to the crop due to natural calamity. The news of the complainant’s crop damaged by the hailstorm was published in the newspaper on 15.03.2020. The complainant sent a written complaint on 15.03.2020 to the opposite party No.2 alongwith all the documents and photographs of the crop for conducting a survey of the huge damage caused to the crop due to natural calamity and for proper compensation. The opposite parties sent a surveyor dated 19.03.2020 to inspect the crop of complainant damaged by the natural calamity. Which assessed the loss of 12 acres of crop of the complainant at 75%. Even after a lapse of long time, when the complainant did not receive the compensation amount, then the complainant contacted the opposite parties. Opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 stated that the file had been sent to the opposite party No.1 and told complainant that his claim would soon pass. But when the complainant did not get the compensation amount even after a lapse of time, then the complainant contacted opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 was informed the opposite party No.2 about the deduction of instalment of insurance of Ravi Fasal 2019-2020 which was deducted from the complainant account by opposite party No.1 on 12.12.2019 and a written letter dated 30.09.2020 had been sent to opposite party No.2 One copy of the same letter was also given to the complainant. The opposite parties sought 15 days time to pay the compensation amount to the complainant. The compensation amount was not given to the complainant within stipulated time given by opposite party No.2, then the complainant again contacted the opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2, after checking on his computer told the complainant that there was a problem in passing the claim due to the fact that khewatnumber of his land was not correct. Then complainant told the opposite party No.2 that in January 2020 a copy of new khewat No. (80/68) was given to the opposite party No.3. Then opposite party No.2 suggested complainant to approach opposite party No.3 in this regard. The complainant after contacted opposite party NO.3 on 22.10.2020, it was found that the bank did not update the new khewat No. 80/68 instant old khewat No. 68/56 while renewing the policy that the reason claim was not passed. Opposite party No.3 assured the complainant that the claim would get soon.After updating the new khewat no. of the complainant land, opposite party No3. Had also informed the opposite parties No.1 & 2”that the old khewat No. 68/56 and new khewat No. 80/68 land are same and the complainant was the owner of the land”. Despite that, the compensation amount was not given to the complainant. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) 75% compensation of damaged crop caused due to natural calamity and future interest @ 24% p.a. against the opposite parties and in favour of the complainant.
b) pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.15,000/ - as litigation expenses .
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted to the extent of implementation of Government of India scheme –PMFBY in the State of Haryana during Rabi 2019-20. It was submitted that PMFBY was a collaboration scheme and it was implemented through a multi agency frame work by selected insurance companies under the overall guidance & control of the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & farmers Welfare (DAC&FW), Ministry ofAgriculture & Farmers Welfare (MoA&FW), Government of India (GOI) and the concerned State in co-ordination with various other agencies; viz Financial Institutions like Commercial Banks, Co-operative Banks, Regional Rural Banks and their regulatory bodies, Government Departments viz. Agriculture, Co-operation, Horticulture, Statistics, Revenue, Information/Science & Technology, Panchayati Raj etc. In reply to rest of the para, it was submitted that this opposite party had been allocated 7 Districts (Panchkula, Kaithal, Kurukshetra, Bhiwani, Rewari, Sirsa& Faridabad) of cluster-1 for implementation of PMFBY during Rabi 2019-20 season. It was submitted that the complainant farmer had not mentioned his NCI-portal application no. as well as Farmer ID No. in the complaint due to malafide intentions. The complaint farmer was required to furnish all relevant and correct particulars in the complaint wrt crop insurance coverage as the same were required to ascertain his crop insurance coverage and for submitting reply accordingly. On the basis of bank account no. and bank branch name mentioned in the complaint, it was found that the complainant was a loanee farmer whose notified crop was compulsorily insured by his bank named Punjab National Bank, Branch Tigaon by uploading his coverage details in the NCI-Portal of Govt. of India.As per para 2.11 & 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the banks were required to upload their individual farmers’ coverage details like crops, crop villages, land survey nos. area insured etc. in National crop Insurance Portal. It was submitted that these details entered/uploaded in the NCI-portal were the only basis of insurance coverage The eligible claims were also settled on the basis of coverage details like crops, crop villages, area insured etc. uploaded in national portal. It was pertinent to mention that the crop loss intimation as submitted by the complainant farmer for his wheat crop due to hailstorm on 15.03.2020 in village Badarpur Said (111), Faridabad. Accordingly, the survey was conducted as per Joint committee Report dated 19.03.2020 to meet timelines. It was further submitted that the intimated crop in villageBadarpur Said (111) was not insured on the NCI-Portal, whereas, wheat crop of the complainant in village Gharora (181) Block-Ballabgarh & Distt. Faridabad was insured on the NCI-Portal and accordingly, the complainant did not have any insurable interest in the crop situated in the village BADARPUR Said (111) mentioned in localized intimation, therefore, the complainant was not eligible for the individual localized claim under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal BimaYojana (PMFBY) during Rabi 2019-20 season. The localized claim was rejected on the aforementioned ground. It was also submitted that the National Crop Insurance Portal (NCIP) was kept open for entries long after the notified cut off dates for uploading of the coverage data. In the interest of farmers and the adherence to the time lines for the conducting of survey as per the scheme guidelines, this opposite party had conducted the localized surveys immediately subject to eligible insurable interest for the intimated crop and land details at the time of claim disbursement. It was submitted that mere conducting of survey would not make any farmer eligible for localized claim. Rather insurable interest was also required to be ascertained as per portal coverage. The Claims for Area approach basis i.e under Wide Spread Calamities had already been finalized as per scheme provision and notification after receipt of Actual Yield data (based on the Crop Cutting Experiments conducted by the State Govt. as per notified area mentioned in state notification) as per the formula mentioned in the scheme. The State Govt. through its Directorate of Agriculture, provides crop yield data with requisite Crop Cutting Experiments (CCEs) for the season Rabi 2019-20 vide letters dated 08.06.2020 (Faridabad). The State Govt. had furnished Threshold Yield Data vide letter dated 13.03.2020 (Faridabad). It was pertinent to mention that during Rabi 2019-20 season, the answering opposite party had already settled total claim amount of Rs.147 crore to 1.35 lakh farmers as per provisions of PMFBY. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that crop loans were given to the farmers by the farmers who(KCC) Kisan Credit Card Banks, so the installment of crop insurance was necessary from the account of the farmers from their accounts under the Prime Minister’s Fasal Insurance Scheme. The farmer’s crop was insured on the PMU portal after deducting the installment and the insurance installment money was sent by the banks t to the insurance company.. In case of crop loss, a complaint was given by the farmer to the office of the undersigned within 72 hours as per the guidelines of the Prime Minister’s Fasal Insurance Scheme. The complaint was uploaded by the office on the portal within two days. After that the employee of a company, the farmer himself and the officer of the department go on the spot and assess the damage in that field and submit the loss report to the office and the survey report was uploaded on the portal by the office and according to the company report gives a claim to the farmer. The survey report was signed by all three of the farmers, company employees and department officials. It was the responsibility of the company to pay the claim. The department was involved in this only till the survey was done and the claim was not given by the department nor was the claim fixed by the department. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – M/s. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited with the prayer to :a) 75% compensation of damaged crop caused due to natural calamity
and future interest @ 24% p.a. against the opposite parties and in favour of the complainant. b) pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs.15,000/ - as litigation expenses .
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Sarvar Singh, Ex.C-1 – Adhaar card, Ex. C-2 – Bank statement,, Ex.C-3 – newspaper cutting, Ex.C-4 – letter dated 15.03.2020,, Ex.C-5 - Damage report, Ex.C-6 – letter dated 30.09.2020, Ex.C-7(colly) – letter dated 22.10.2020,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of ShriJaspal Singh Khurmi, Regional Manager, Regional office, Cabin No.7, 3rd floor, Agro Mall, Sector-20, Panchkula, Hr., Annexure A – letter dated 25.04.2018, Annx.B - Operational Guidelines, Annx.C – letter dated 27.05.2019, Annx.- D – notification, Annx.E – letter dated 19.07.2019, Annx.F – details of insured farmer, Application status, letter regarding intimation of crop loss, damage report, Annx.H – Best Five Year Block wise Average Yield & Threshold Yield Rabi 2019-20 of wheat Crop As per Crop Cutting Experiments,, Annx.G – letter dated 08.06.2020 regarding Village wise Actual Yield of Crop Cutting experiments under PMFBY Rabi 2019-20,Annx.I – Authority in case titled Canara Bank Vs. Seth Prakash Chandra Jain &Anr., Annx. –K – order dated 20.9.2010 passed by Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Syndicate Bank Vs. Ranga Reddy &Ors., Annx.L- orderdated 11.8.2021 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Ajit SinGh Malubhai Ghummad etc. vs. Union of India &Ors.
Despite availing several opportunities, evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2 has not been filed. Therefore, the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2 has been closed as per court order vide order 05.07.2022.
As per the evidence of the opposite party No.3, Ex.RW3/A affidavit of Shri Kaushlender Sharma, Branch Manager/Authorized signatory of Punjab National Bank, Tigaon Branch, District Faridabad. Ex. RW3/ 1 & 2– Account Ledge Inquiry,, Ex.RW3/3 – Maintain payment order, Ex.RW3/4 to RW3/7– Transaction Maintenance – part Transaction List.
7. In this complaint, the complaint was filed with the prayer of 75% compensation of damaged crop caused due to natural calamity and future interest @ 24% p.a. against the opposite parties and in favour of the complainant As per damage report vide Ex.C-5, the damaged crop of approx area i.e 12 acre.
8. The counsel for the complainant argued at length and also agitated on the ground that the premium of policy has already been deducted from the account of the complainant form opposite party No.3 on 12.12.2019 bearing account No. 7405008800000567 vide Annexure C2. Officer of opposite party No.2 i.e. Agriculture Department and farmer Welfare Department has also argued that there duty is just to make the survey of the field alongwith opposite parties Nos.1& 3.
9. There is no doubt that the amount of premium was deducted from the account of the complainant. It was the duty of the bank to issue the insurance policy of the crop. The counsel for opposite party No.1 argued at length and stated at Bar that the bank had paid the amount after cut out date which are the mandatory entry of all coverage details on portal from Rabi 2019-20 onwards. The insurance policy could not be issued due to sole deficiency of the bank making payment after the cut out date of the Central Govt. policy and entry did not made by the bank as per the provision laid down by Central Government .
10. In this case, bank is responsible for its deficiency because cut out date was 12.12.219 and the bank paid premium to the insurance company on 26.12.2019 vide Ex.R3/2 for the insurance policy for the farmers after cut out date. The policy could not be issued as per policy submitted by opposite party No.1 of the central Government for the farmers and the mandatory entry of all coverage details on portal from Rabi 2019-20in PMFBY. In this way, the liability goes against opposite party No.3 i.e. Bank and they will pay the damage of the crop as per assessment done by opposite party No.2 i.e. Agriculture Department & Farmer Welfare . The complainant is suffering from 2019 till now.
11. After going through the evidence led by both the parties, there is no doubt that the premium was taken by the bank from the account of the complainant and as per the report of opposite party No.3 that the crop was damage 75%. There is no fault of the consumer/farmer. As per the policy of the PMFBY , the assessment of the crop per acre is approx. Rs.15,000/- and there was loss of 75% in approx. area of 12 acres acre and the compensation of the damaged crop should be given to the farmer as per the policy. Keeping in view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that opposite party No.3 i.e bank is failed to establish their case. So the liability of the compensation goes against opposite party No.3. But in the interest of justice, first the insurance company will pay to the complainant and after that insurance company will recover the above said amount from the Bank i.e. opposite party o.3.
12 Opposite party No.1 is directed to:
a) pay Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a from the date of damage till its realization.
b) pay Rs.5500/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.
c) pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
It is also directed to opposite party No.1 i.e. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited to first pay to the complainant and after that insurance company will recover the above said amount from the Bank i.e. opposite party o.3. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 12.07.2022 (AmitArora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
