BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 08 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 07.01.2020.
Date of Decision : 26.07.2024.
Bijender Singh son of Inderaj, aged about 36 years, resident of village Gigorani, Tehsil N.S. Chopta and District Sirsa (HR).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Oriental General Insurance Company Limited, Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Road, New Delhi Pin- 110002.
2. State Bank of India Branch Kagdana, through its Manager Village Kagdana, Tehsil N.S. Chopta, District Sirsa HRY.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. Anil Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a farmer by profession and he is cultivating agricultural land measuring 60 kanals 06 marlas out of total land measuring 180.18 kanals (as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) situated in the revenue estate of village Gigorani, District Sirsa. He is having Kisan Credit card account with op no.2 bearing account no. 36907529132. The op no.2 bank deducted premium of Rs.4394/- on 30.07.2018 from the KCC account of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop as per scheme of Government. The premium was deducted by op no.2 from the account of complainant on the cut off date of deposition of premium with op no.1. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 season was damaged and other farmers of village Gigorani, District Sirsa, Haryana have received insurance claim against the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 season at the rate of Rs.17,400/- per acre but complainant did not get insurance claim according to village Gigorani. That as per calculation of insurance claim of village Gigorani, his claim comes around Rs.1,30,500/- but complainant has received an amount of Rs.51,908/-. That complainant approached the ops and requested to pay rest of insurance claim i.e. amount of Rs.78,592/- but all in vain and they have caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op had never received the premium for the insurance of the crop in the land of complainant situated in village Gigorani and same was not insured with answering op. The banker of the complainant has uploaded the name of village as Rampura Bagrian in place of Gigorani on the National Crop Insurance Portal. It is further submitted that premium of crop in the lands situated in village Rampura Bagarian was deducted from the account of complainant and not for the land situated in village Gigorani. The answering op had paid the claim for the loss to the cotton crop to the farmers of village Rampura Bagarian as per the loss of crops in village Rampura Bagarian and an amount of Rs.51,908/- for the loss of cotton crop was paid as per assessment of loss by the authorities in village Rampura Bagarian through op no.2 the nodal bank of the complainant. It is further submitted that as the answering op has paid the compensation for the loss to crop as per the loss assessment by the authorities in village Rampura Bagarian, the answering op cannot be held responsible or liable for the wrongs committed by op no.2, therefore, op no.2 is liable to pay for the loss, if any to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version submitting therein that bank has debited the amount of Rs.4394/- from the account of complainant on 30.07.2018 and has credited the same to the account of op no.1 as premium of insurance. All the information required by op no.1 was sent to the insurance company as per rules and there is no deficiency of service on the part of answering op. It is further submitted that as per clause 19 (xxii) of the Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department notification dated 30.03.2018, the insurance company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of cut off 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. The insurance company has neither informed regarding the discrepancy in the record nor has refunded the amount to the complainant or to the bank. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.
6. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Puja Tapwal, Incharge Legal Hub as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex. RW1/1 and Ex. RW1/2. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Gagan Kumar Branch Manager as Ex. RW2/A and document Ex. RW2/1.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. The complainant in order to prove loss to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 has placed on file report/ letter of the Deputy Director, Agriculture department, Sirsa as Ex.C4 in which it is reported that average yield of cotton crop of village Gigorani in Kharif, 2018 was 229.43 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta was 561.06 Kgs. per hectare. So, it is proved on record that as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, since the average yield of cotton crop of village Gigorani in Kharif, 2018 was less than threshold yield of block, therefore, there was loss to the cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in village Gigorani and complainant is also having his agricultural land in village Gigorani. The op no.1 insurance company has taken the plea that as the bank uploaded the name of village of the land of complainant as Rampura Bagarain on the portal, therefore, on the basis of loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in village Rampura Bagarain, complainant was paid an amount of Rs.51908/- by op no.1. The op no.2 bank has not denied the fact that it did not upload the village name of land of complainant as Rampura Bagarian. Since the complainant is having his land in village Gigorani, therefore, he was entitled to insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 as per calculation of claim of village Gigorani and due to mistake of op no.2 bank, he has received claim amount for the loss of crop on the basis of village Rampura Bagarain. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 was Rs.72,000/- and as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant was entitled to total insurance claim amount of Rs.1,30,500/- for the loss of his cotton crop in his 60.6 kanals of land. Since the amount of Rs.51,908/- has been paid by op no.1 insurance company on the basis of record uploaded by op no.2 bank i.e. village name of land of complainant as Rampura Bagarian, therefore, it cannot be said there is any fault of op no.1 insurance company and as such op no.1 insurance company has rightly paid above said claim amount on the basis of loss in village Rampura Bagarain and op no.2 bank only is liable to pay the remaining claim amount to the complainant. The plea of op no.2 bank in its written version as well as affidavit that insurance company should have verified the data of insured farmer as per notification of Haryana Govt. dated 30.03.2018 and plea taken by op no.2 bank in the affidavit that this Commission while discussing the clause no. 19 (xxii) of the notification of Haryana Govt. has held in case titled as Jagdish Versus HDFC Bank and others that insurance company was liable to pay the claim to the complainant do not carry much importance firstly because in the meeting of State Level Grievance Committee (SLGC) held on 14.01.2021 it has been held that in 3612 cases of village Mismatch, the bank have to pay the claim. Secondly Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula in the latest judgment in 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 and there is nothing to prove that said decision of Hon’ble State Commission has been set aside by any appellate authorities. So, in the present case also, the op no.2 bank is liable to pay the remaining claim amount of Rs.78,592/- to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop in kharif, 2018 in village Gigorani, District Sirsa.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.2 bank and direct op no.2 to pay the claim amount of Rs.78,592/- 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 said amount of Rs.78,592/- from op no.2 bank alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op no.2 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.1 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 Member President,
Dated: 26.07.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
