BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 84 of 2021.                                                                      

                                                          Date of Institution :    08.04.2021.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    28.08.2024.

Ramesh Chander son of Om Parkash, aged about 36 years, resident of village Kusambi, District Sirsa.

                                ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Oriental Bank of Commerce, now converted in Punjab National Bank Patli Dabar, Ding Adda, Sirsa, Haryana.

2. Oriental General Insurance Company Limited, Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Road, New Delhi, Pin 110002.

...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT                                   

                     SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.           

Present:       Sh. J.S. Beniwal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                   Sh. R.K. Bajaj, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

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 Kisan Credit card account with op no.1 vide account no. 035445115006174. He is cultivating land measuring 33 kanals 01 marla situated in village Jodhkan, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa. That as per crop insurance scheme of Government of India, op no.1 deducted premium amount of Rs.2330.9 on 31.07.2018 from the KCC account of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 season and got insured his cotton crop. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 was damaged and other farmers having their land in village Jodhkan have received insurance claim at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre in June, 2019 but complainant did not get any insurance claim despite his several requests and as such ops have caused deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement and submitted that bank has debited the amount of Rs.2330.99 from the account of complainant on 31.07.2018 and has credited the same to the account of op no.2 as premium of the insurance. All the information required by op no.2 was sent to the insurance company as per rules. It is further submitted that as per clause 19 (xxii) of Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018, 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 cut off date and in case of any correction must report to the State Govt. 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. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.                Op no.2 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that cotton crop of complainant in Kharif 2018 crop season in the area of village Jodhkan, District Sirsa was not got insured with answering op by op no.1 rather on the portal, the area of village Narel Khera was uploaded. Therefore, there was/is no privity of insurance contract between complainant and answering op and op no.1 bank only is responsible for the said mistake as per guidelines of PMFBY and as per minutes of the State Level Grievance Committee meeting dated 14.01.2021. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 prayed for.

5.                The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.

6.                On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Bhal Singh Bana, Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex. R1/1 and Ex.R1/2. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Puja Tapwal, Incharge Legal Hub as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

7.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.

8.                From the copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C1, it is evident that complainant is having his agricultural land in village Jodhkan, District Sirsa but op no.1 bank while uploading the data of complainant on the portal insuring his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 wrongly shown the land of complainant in village Narel Khera instead of Jodhkan as is evident from report provided by op no.1 bank as Ex.C2. The complainant in order to prove loss to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 has placed on file report/ letter of Deputy Director of Agriculture department, Sirsa as Ex.C6 according to which the average yield of cotton crop of village Jodhkan in Kharif, 2018 was 370.24 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta was 561.06 Kgs. per hectare and as such as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2018. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 was Rs.72,000/-. So, as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to the insurance claim amount of Rs.39,600/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in his 1.61870 hectare of land. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula in a similar case titled as The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank now merged with Union Bank of India Versus Rupinder Singh and others Appeal No. 803 of 2022 decided on 11.01.2023 has held that “As per provision 17.2 of operational guidelines of PMFBY for difference of claim due to wrong information, if any, concerned bank/ intermediaries were responsible”. The Clause 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY stipulates that 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 (if any). The appeal filed by the bank in the above said case was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission. So, in the present case also op no.1 bank only is liable to pay said claim amount to the complainant for wrong uploading of data of complainant on the portal.

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 bank to pay the claim amount of Rs.39,600/- 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.39,600/- from op no.1 bank alongwith interest @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 to the complainant for harassment and litigation expenses within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.2 insurance company 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. 28.08.2024.                                                    District Consumer Disputes                                                                                  

                                                                          Redressal Commission, Sirsa.