BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 666 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 19.11.2019.
Date of Decision : 09.06.2022.
Dharam Devi, aged 67 years wife of Shri Jawahar Lal, resident of village Lambi, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager at Sirsa, District Sirsa.
2. UCO Bank, Mandi Dabwali Branch, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Ravi Mehta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.S. Chalana, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.
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).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that she is an agriculturist having land measuring 40 kanals (as detailed in para no.1 of complaint) situated in village Lambi, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. That complainant has raised crop loan to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- under Kissan Credit Card scheme from op no.2 after mortgaging her above said land with op no.2. It is further averred that on 27.07.2018 op no.2 debited a sum of Rs.2913.74 from the aforesaid KCC account of complainant towards insurance premium for insurance of cotton crop of complainant and thereby got insured crop of complainant with op no.1 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. That in Kharif season, 2018, complainant had sown Narma crop in her 40 kanals land, however, due to unfavorable climatic conditions, the said crop was damaged to the extent of 53.6%. The field of complainant and other farmers of village Lambi were inspected by the officers of Agriculture Department and report was duly forwarded to other ops. The op no.1 thereafter settled the claim of complainant and paid a sum of Rs.34,948/- as compensation to the complainant. It is further averred that when complainant compared the amount of compensation for the loss suffered by her in 40 kanals of land which is equal to 2.023 hectare at the rate of Rs.38,210/-, she noticed that she was actually entitled to Rs.77,298/- and in this manner, complainant has been paid less compensation. It is further averred that complainant and other farmers of village Lambi contacted the officers of op no.1 and inquired about less payment of their insurance claim whereupon they were told that the reason for less payment will be conveyed to op no.2 bank. Thereafter, complainant was told by op no.2 that as intimated by op no.1 such compensation has been paid to the farmers of village Lambi and that complainant and other farmers who are of village Mat Dadu, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa have been paid less compensation because in village Mat Dadu, the loss was estimated at 23.99%, whereas complainant being farmer of village Lambi having land in village Lambi suffered loss of her narma crop to the tune of 53.06%. The complainant and other farmers were shocked and astonished in this regard as they have been shown of village Mat Dadu and when they met with op no.1 and showed their proof in this regard, op no.1 did not pay any heed to the same rather stated that op no.2 bank has provided them the detail that they are farmers of village Mat Dadu, so compensation on the basis of loss suffered in village Lambi cannot be paid to them and thereby refused to entertain the claim of complainant. That in this manner, both the ops no.1 and 2 have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant due to which complainant has suffered financial loss and unnecessary harassment and complainant is entitled to remaining amount of Rs.42,350/- alongwith interest and is also entitled to compensation for harassment and litigation expenses from ops. Hence, this complaint.
3. Ops were served. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that as per record as well as record available on the Portal, the crop of complainant was not got insured with answering op. The answering op did not receive any insurance premium from op no.2 qua the insurance of crop of complainant, therefore, no compensation was payable to the complainant. It is further submitted that it is wrong that answering op paid a sum of Rs.52,430/- out of Rs.1,15,971/- as alleged. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement and submitted that op no.2 remitted Rs.7,77,490.56 paisa vide UTR dated 16.8.2018 and amount of Rs.10,547.67 paisa vide UTR dated 16.8.2018 regarding premium of PMFBY Kharif 2018 to the op no.1 in which the premium amount of Rs.2913.74 paisa of the complainant is included. The answering op remitted the amount well within the scheduled date i.e. before the cut off date. The op no.1 accepted said premium amount. Neither op no.1 reported about any mistake in the data of the complainant to the State Government within two months of the cut off date as per notification of Haryana Government dated 30.3.2018 nor refunded the premium amount of Rs.2913.74 to the op no.2. It is further submitted that daily updation was being carried out in the site of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna in those days and there was a load of work and the site may have shown wrong data. If there was any clerical error or over sight during the process of up-dation of data in the site, the insurance company has to verify the data and to report for correction within two months of the cut off date. The silence on the part of op no.1 insurance company presumes that the data of the insured farmer is correct. The op no.2 has discharged its duty of transferring the premium amount, hence op no.2 is not at fault. It is further submitted that as and when the op no.2 came to know about mistake in the data, the op no.2 immediately sent requests through emails dated 30.5.2019, 1.6.2019, 4.6.2019, 17.6.2019 to op no.1. In addition to it, Lead District Manager’s Office Rori Bazar, Sirsa sent request regarding settlement of claim cases through email dated 1.7.2019 to op no.1 but the op no.1 did not pay any heed to the requests of answering op no.2 and the Lead District Manager’s Office, Sirsa. The op no.2 also served legal notice to op no.1 on 15.6.2021 but neither op no.1 made payment of the amount nor replied the notice. Ultimately, after expiry of the notice period, the op no.2 has filed suit for recovery of Rs.44,47,594/- in the Hon’ble Civil Court at Dabwali on 9.7.2021 against op no.1 regarding claim of its farmer-borrowers whose crop of Kharif, 2018 was insured with op no.1 and same is fixed for 4.2.2022 for filing written statement of op no.1. It is further submitted that complainant admits that she has been paid Rs.34,948/- as compensation by op no.1, while she is actually entitled to Rs.77,298/-, hence she has been less amount of Rs.42,350/-. This fact amply proves that the crop of complainant was insured with the op no.1 and the dispute is only regarding payment of less compensation amount between complainant and op no.1. It is further submitted that the issue of wrong village name, percentage of loss assessment and payment of less compensation amount runs between complainant and op no.1. It is the bounden duty of op no.1 to get correction in village name and to make assessment of compensation amount properly and to make payment of proper compensation amount. It is lame excuse that name of village Mat Dadu has been provided. The complainant is only entitled to get compensation from op no.1 insurance company as op no.1 has accepted the premium amount but has paid less amount of compensation.
5. In additional objections, it is submitted on behalf of op no.2 that in the decision dated 17.7.2018 passed in the meeting of DMLC Sirsa, headed by Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman of PMFBY, Sirsa, directions have been given to op no.1 to pay insurance claim to the farmers but op no.1 has not implemented the decision till today. It is further submitted that Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Sirsa vide letter bearing No. 11801 Statics/ dated 6.8.2019 has directed the op no.1 to ensure payment of compensation amount to the farmers as per guidelines of PMFBY but op no.1 has not obeyed the directions till today. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 prayed for.
6. Op no.3 in its separate written statement while taking certain preliminary objections has asserted that answering op is only liable to conduct the CCE’s experiments and yield basis claims are to be settled by the insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme, which have already been given by answering op within specific time period and as such prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
7. Complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of pass book Ex.C1, copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C2, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C3, copy of claim settlement sheet of insured farmers who have been given claim or not given claim Ex.C4 and copy of adhar card Ex.C5.
8. On the other hand, OP no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Senior Branch Manager as Ex.R2/A, copy of Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare department notification dated 30.3.2018 Ex.R2/1, proceeding of meeting Ex.R2/2, certificate of bank regarding remittance of premium to op no.1 Ex.R2/E, customer account ledger report Ex.R2/4, copies of emails Ex.R2/5 to Ex.R2/8, copy of letter written by Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Sirsa to Manager Oriental General Insurance Company Sirsa Ex.R2/9. OP no.3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa Ex.R10, copy of Haryana Government notification dated 30.3.2018 Ex.R11, copy of village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during Kharif, 2018 Ex.R12. OP no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Virender Kumar, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.RW1/A, copy of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R13, copy of Haryana Govt. notification Ex.R14 and copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R15.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant, learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant on behalf of op no.3 and have gone through the case file carefully.
10. The complainant in order to prove her case has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which she has reiterated all the contents of her complaint. It is an undisputed fact between the parties that an amount of Rs.2913.74 was debited from the KCC (loan) account of complainant by op no.2 as premium for paying the same to op no.1 insurance company for insuring the Kharif crop of complainant of 2018 as per scheme of the Central Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna as crops of loanee farmers were to be insured under the above said scheme. The said premium amount of Rs.2913.74 was remitted to op no.1 insurance company. According to complainant, her cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in 40 kanals land in village Lambi, District Sirsa was damaged to the extent of 53.06% but she has been paid less compensation of Rs.34,948/- by op no.1 whereas she was entitled to receive total amount of Rs.77,298/- and as such, she is entitled to remaining amount of Rs.42,350/- from ops. It is the case of complainant that since her land has been wrongly shown in village Mat Dadu on crop insurance portal, so her loss was estimated at 23.99% whereas complainant being farmer of village Lambi suffered loss of her cotton crop to the extent of 53.06% and as such she is entitled to remaining amount of Rs.42,350/- from ops. The complainant in order to prove that she is having her above said land in village Lambi has also placed on file copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C2 which reveals that she is having agricultural land in village Lambi District Sirsa. The complainant has placed on record copy of settlement of claim of insured farmers as Ex.C4, the perusal of which reveals that most of the farmers have been given claim amount and some farmers have not been given claim amount as their actual yield is more than threshold yield and in this document name of complainant Dharam Devi also find mentions. In the said document Ex.C4, complainant Dharam Devi has been shown of village Mat Dadu and as her damage to the crop has been shown as 23.99%, therefore, she has been given claim amount of Rs.34948/- by op no.1 whereas from the said document, it is also evident that farmers of her actual village i.e. Lambi have received claim amount for the damage to their crop of Kharif, 2018 to the extent of 53.06% and as such complainant who is also farmer of village Lambi was also entitled to receive claim amount for the damage of her cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 to the extent of 53.06% and not to the extent of 23.99% only.
11. Now the question arises for consideration that from whom the complainant is entitled for remaining claim amount? In this regard, though insurance company op no.1 has taken almost contradictory stand against its own document Ex.C4 vide which claims have been given to the farmers and has asserted that as per record as well as record available on the portal, the crop of complainant was not got insured with op no.1. It is further asserted by op no.1 that it did not receive any insurance premium from op no.2 qua the insurance of crop of complainant. Op no.1 has also asserted that it is wrong that it has paid a sum of Rs.34,948/- to the complainant. So, from this assertion of op no.1, it is evident that op no.1 has also denied payment of above said amount of Rs.34,948/- to the complainant whereas from the record available on file and as per admission of complainant, it is evident that complainant has been paid amount of Rs.34,948/- by op no.1. So, the contention of op no.1 that since crop of complainant was not insured, there was no reason for payment of claim amount to complainant has no substance rather it seems that op no.1 has made wrong assertions in its written statement without going through its record. As the op no.1 has retained premium amount for insuring the crop of complainant, therefore, op no.1 is liable to pay claim amount to the complainant for the damage of her cotton crop in her above said land to the extent of 53.06% in land measuring 40 kanals situated in village Lambi, District Sirsa. In so far as wrong up-dation of village name of complainant on Insurance Portal by op no.2 bank is concerned, though it is proved on record that due to mistake on the part of officials of op no.2 bank village name of complainant was shown as Mat Dadu instead of Lambi but it was also bounden duty of op no.1 insurance company who was receiving premium amount to verify the data of insured farmers as per operational guidelines of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. In this regard, to implement the above said scheme of Central Government during Kharif, 2018 and Rabi 2018-2019, Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department also made notification dated 30.3.2018, the relevant clause of which is reproduced as under:-
Clause 19 (xxii)- 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 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.
12. In view of above said clause of Haryana Government notification, it was also duty of the insurance company to verify the data of insured farmers at its own but in the present case it is not proved on record that op no.1 insurance company after receiving premium amount from the op no.2 bank on behalf of complainant ever verified the data of insured farmers. The op no.2 bank has duly proved on record that op no.1 insurance company only is liable to pay remaining claim amount to complainant as per directions of District Level Monitoring Committee and Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa. From the document Ex.C4, it is also proved on record that threshold yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 of block Dabwali where village of complainant namely Lambi is situated was 576.36 Kgs. per hectare and actual yield in village Lambi was 270.48 Kgs. per hectare, so as per criteria given in Clause 15 regarding assessment of loss/ shortfall in yield in notification dated 30.03.2018, there was loss of cotton crop in village Lambi. So, it is also proved on record that there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in her 40 kanals of land to the extent of 53.06% and as such complainant is entitled to remaining amount of Rs.42,350/- from op no.1 insurance company as op no.1 has also not rebutted through any cogent and convincing evidence that complainant is not entitled to said amount of Rs.42,350/- and has not rebutted the said claim of complainant. Though op no.1 has relied upon documents Ex.R13 to Ex.R15 i.e. operational guidelines of PMFBY, Haryana Govt. notification and minutes of meeting but same are not helpful to op no.1 because as per clause 17.11 and 17.12 of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R13 and Haryana Govt. notification Ex.R14 relied upon by op no.1 itself, the insurance company has to verify the data of insured farmers but in the present case there is nothing to suggest that op no.1 ever verified the data of complainant on its own. In so far as mistake on the part of op no.2 bank regarding updation of wrong name of village of complainant is concerned, though op no.2 has averred that said mistake occurred due to heavy load of work at that time but we are of the considered view that end of justice would also met if op no.2 bank is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant for harassment including litigation expenses. However, no liability of op no.3 of any kind is made out.
13. In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed against opposite parties no.1 and 2. OP no.1 insurance company is directed to pay the remaining claim amount of Rs.42,350/- to the complainant whereas op no.2 bank is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the opposite parties no.1 and 2 are liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they will be liable to pay interest @7% on their respective payable amount to the complainant from the date of order till actual realization. However, complaint qua op no.3 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President
Dt. 09.06.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
