BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 641 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 06.11.2019.
Date of Decision : 06.06.2023.
Bhoop Singh son of Shri Bahadar Ram, resident of village Mammer Khera, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, branch office at Sirsa.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ABW- Towers, Unit No. 511-512, 5th Floor, M.G. Road, Iffco Tokio Chowk, Gurugram- 122001, through its authorized signatory.
3. Manager, Central Bank of India, village Rania, District Sirsa (Haryana).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. A.K. Beniwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops) seeking insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and Kharif, 2018.
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is having his KCC account No.3361702474 with op no.3 and is agriculturist having land in village Mammer Khera. That as per Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, insurance premium of Rs.1693.42 for insurance of his kharif crop of 2017 was deducted by op no.3 and was paid to op no.2. Similarly, the premium amount of Rs.2320.08 was deducted by op no.3 for insurance of his kharif crop of 2018 and was paid to op no.1. The complainant sown cotton crop in 2017 and 2018 which was also disclosed to op no.3. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainant of year 2017 and 2018 was completely damaged due to white fly and other natural calamity but no claim of kharif, 2017 was given to him but his co-sharers were given insurance claim and op no.2 flatly refused to pay insurance claim to him. That in the year 2018 when complainant enquired about the claim of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018, he found that officials of op no.3 wrongly and mistakenly mentioned about paddy crop instead of cotton crop and due to the said mistake of officials of ops complainant has suffered financial loss. Hence, this complaint seeking claim amount of Rs.3,50,000/- besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
3. On notice, ops no.1 and 3 appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that bank has uploaded the paddy crop of complainant of village Mammerkhera on the portal and no loss of paddy crop has been reported by the agriculture department during the coverage period of insurance from answering op. If op bank has uploaded the wrong crop of complainant, in that eventuality, the dispute is between complainant and bank and answering op cannot be held liable for the wrong committed by the bank and this wrong has never been corrected by the bank or farmers within the stipulated period on the portal. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 did not appear despite notice delivered through registered cover and as none appeared on behalf of op no.2, therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
5. Op no.3 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections that complainant has failed to give the detail of his land for which he is raising his claim, therefore, complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that complainant has also failed to provide the documents with regard to damage of kharif crop (as stated cotton) in the land belonging to him. It is further submitted that complainant has concealed the true and material acts as complainant has received insurance claim of Rs.12,191.59 (i.e. Rs.6095.80 on 22.08.2018 and Rs.6095.79 on 12.09.2018) for damage to his kharif crop 2017 i.e. paddy crop and complainant even after receiving the insurance claim neither refunded the amount of claim nor he raised any objection with regard to mentioning the wrong crop i.e. paddy crop instead of cotton crop and to correct the nature of his crop. However, even otherwise, there was implied consent of complainant with regard to sowing of paddy crop in Kharif season. Therefore, there is no mistake or any carless in the services provided by answering op in favour of complainant. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar son of Sh. Parhlad Ex. CW2/A, affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh son of Sh. Gopi Ram Ex.CW3/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14.
7. OP no.1 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Puja Incharge HUB Legal as Ex.R1 and operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R2 and minutes of the meeting of State Level Grievance Committee held on 14.01.2021 as Ex.R3.
8. OP no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. K.S. Bhaskar, Branch Manager as Ex. R4.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
10. From the copy of statement of account of complainant Ex.C2, it is evident that on 01.08.2017 premium amount of Rs.1693.42 was deducted by op no.3 for insurance of his kharif crop of 2017 with op no.2. Further from the said copy of statement of account Ex.C2, it is also evident that on 30.07.2018 premium amount of Rs.2320.08 was also deducted by op no.3 for insurance of his kharif crop of 2018 with op no.1. The complainant in order to prove the fact that op no.3 bank has wrongly uploaded the crop of paddy instead of cotton on insurance portal has placed on file data sheet provided by the bank to the complainant as Ex.C1 in which the op no.3 bank has shown the crop of complainant as paddy in kharif, 2018 meaning thereby that op no.3 uploaded the crop of complainant as paddy on insurance crop portal. The complainant has also placed on file certificate issued by op no.3 bank as Ex.C4 in which the bank has certified that though complainant availed KCC limit for cotton and wheat crop but bank deducted premium in Kharif, 2017 from the account of complainant for paddy crop. Similarly, the bank has also certified that in Kharif, 2018 premium was deducted from the account of complainant for insurance of his paddy crop. As such, it is proved on record that bank has wrongly uploaded the paddy crop of complainant in kharif season on the insurance portal and accordingly paddy crop of complainant in Kharif, 2017 was insured with op no.2 and paddy crop in Kharif, 2018 was insured with the op no.1 though complainant sown cotton crop and not paddy crop. The complainant in order to prove damage to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and Kharif, 2018 has placed on file report of the Deputy Director of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa as Ex.C11, in which it is reported that average yield of cotton crop of village Mammerkhera in Kharif, 2017 was 442.23 Kgs. lint per hectare and threshold yield of cotton of block Rania in Kharif, 2017 was 628.74 Kgs. Lint. per hectare. It is also reported that the average yield of cotton crop of village Mammerkhera in Kharif, 2018 was 393.83 Kgs. Lint per hectare and threshold yield of cotton of block Rania in Kharif, 2018 was 548.10 Kgs. Lint per hectare. So, as per guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss of cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 and Kharif, 2018 in village Mammerkhera and as such it is proved on record that there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2017 and Kharif, 2018. Though complainant has claimed insurance claim amount of Rs.3,50,000/- for complete damage to his crops of kharif, 2017 and Kharif, 2018 but as per above said report of agricultural department, it cannot be said that there was total loss to the crops of complainant. Moreover, for calculation of claim, a formula has also been given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, which is as under:-
Threshold yield minus average yield
_______________________________ X sum insured X area
Threshold yield.
11. The sum insured of cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 in District Sirsa was Rs.69,000/- per hectare and in Kharif, 2018 was Rs.72,000/- per hectare. It is also proved on record that complainant is owning 3.90 acres of land as mentioned in data sheet Ex.C1 which is equal to 1.57 hectare. As such complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.32,135/- for loss of his cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 and Rs.30,785/- for the loss of his cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 as per above said formula. The complainant has already received amount of Rs.12,191.59 from op no.2 insurance company on account of loss of crop of 2017. So, the op no.3 bank is liable to pay the remaining amounts to the complainant after deducting amount of Rs.12,191.59 which has already been paid to the complainant. The contention of the bank that complainant has received insurance claim for the damage of paddy crop of kharif, 2017 and has not raised any objection regarding mentioning of paddy crop has no substance because as per certificate of bank Ex.C4, the bank granted loan amount to the complainant for cotton crop whereas in the said certificate Ex.C4 also the bank certified that bank deducted premium amounts from the account of complainant for insurance of paddy crop of Kharif, 2017 and Kharif, 2018. It is not proved on record by op no.3 bank that complainant informed the op no.3 bank regarding change of crop. Though, from the copy of statement of account of complainant, it is proved that amount of Rs.12191.59 was paid to the complainant as insurance claim for kharif, 2017 but however, it is not mentioned anywhere that said insurance amount paid to complainant was of paddy crop of kharif, 2017. Moreover, it is not proved on record by op no.3 bank that complainant has been paid insurance claim of kharif, 2017 for paddy crop and as op no.3 bank has wrongly shown the paddy crop instead of cotton crop, therefore, complainant cannot be said at fault in this regard. Thus, complainant is entitled to total insurance claim amount of Rs.50,728.41 from op no.3 bank.
12. In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint against the opposite party no.3 bank and direct the op no.3 to pay the claim amount of Rs.50,728.41 (in round figure Rs.50,730/-) 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 amount of Rs.50,730/- from op no.3 bank alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op no.3 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint against ops no.1 and 2 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President
Dt. 06.06.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
