BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 314 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 13.06.2019.
Date of Decision : 07.07.2022.
Jagdev Singh, aged about 48 years son of Shri Bakhshish Singh, resident of village Malikpura, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa. M. No. 94670-94861.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Oriental House, Head Office, New Delhi- 110002 through its Manager.
2. Punjab National Bank, Branch Chormar Khera, District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager..
...…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. Mahesh Pareek, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, 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 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 the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist having land in joint share (as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) situated in village Malikpura, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 and is wholly dependent upon agricultural income. He is having his account bearing No. 1030008800006035 with op no.2. It is further averred that as per scheme of Central Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna, the crops sown in the land of complainant was insured with op no.1 against loss, damages of crop due to natural causes and accordingly an amount of Rs.3496.49 was deducted on 31.07.2018 as premium by op no.2 from the account of complainant and amount was transferred to the account of op no.1 for the insurance of crops. That complainant had sown crop of cotton in about seven acres of land in year 2018 which was damaged due to disaster of white bees and other natural calamities and therefore, complainant is entitled to insurance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- approximately at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre, but the ops have refused to pay insurance claim to the complainant. It is further averred that crop of complainant was also insured by concerned insurance company in year 2017 and an amount of Rs.3352.23 was deducted on 31.7.2017 and the insurance amount of Rs.53424.45 was credited in his account on 1.3.2019. It is further averred that complainant has made his all best efforts to get insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 but ops are adamant not to release the claim amount to the complainant and have caused harassment as well as mental agony to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable on the ground of privity of contract as insurance scheme has been provided to bank and consideration for the services of insurance, if any is also to be received from bank only (in case of loanee farmer). In absence of any consideration or want of any written contract of insurance, present complaint is not maintainable; that it is the duty of banker for loanee farmer to ensure correct particulars to be uploaded in all respect with regard to the land village, crop, name etc. as required and covering the risk of only notified crops as bank is paid 4% charges on account of service charges on the premium collected from bank; that present complaint is without any cause of action and complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and complaint is pre-mature as there is specific Grievance Redressal Mechanism; that present complaint is also not maintainable as answering op is not insurer for the alleged crop and crop loss of complainant and no insurance premium has ever been remitted in the account of insurance company or uploaded on the portal with detailed particulars regarding land, crop, village, block, loanee etc. or supplied to answering op at any point of time (within time period prescribed in the OGs) for getting the insurance coverage either by farmer/ complainant at his own or through his banker.
4. On merits, it is submitted that Govt. notification and operational guidelines of PMFBY are binding upon any individual loanee or non loanee farmer, bank and insurance company, if there is insurance. However, answering op did not receive any premium against this very account number, name of farmer and land mentioned by complainant. However, if bank had failed to pay the premium of insurance for getting the coverage of insurance of crop of complainant of said village, in that eventuality, answering op cannot be held liable to make payment of any damages, compensation to the complainant. In case of failure to get the insurance coverage by the banker by ensuring payment of premium with correct data, detail record about name of farmer, crop, village etc. as per operational guidelines on the portal meant for this purpose, where from the record is taken by insurance company and coverage is done, then only bank is liable. On the portal there is no entry of coverage against the account number of complainant through the bank regarding crop mentioned in the complaint. It is further submitted that when there is no insurance of cotton crop of kharif, 2018 of complainant, then question of refusal by answering op does not arise. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.2 filed reply and took certain preliminary objections submitting that as per the term of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY scheme), which was launched by Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on 13.2.2016, for the farmers who have sought crop loan by any Financial Institutions, it was mandatory for the Banks to insure all the borrowers under the scheme. The premium of the insurance was to be deducted from the account and was to be paid to op no.1 insurance company by the bank. In the present case, the bank has debited the amount of premium from the account of complainant for insurance of crop of Kharif, 2018. As per clause 6.3.1 of revised operational guidelines of PMFBY, the aadhar had been made mandatory for availing crop insurance from Kharif 2017 season onward. The information regarding the insurance could not be uploaded in the portal of the company op no.1 due to want of adhar card, as such, the premium amount was remitted back in the account of complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of answering op. It is further submitted that mere sanctioning/ disbursement of crop loan and submission of proposals/ declaration and remittance of premium by farmer/ bank, without explicit intent to raise the crop, does not constitute acceptance of risk by insurance company. It is further submitted that a complaint was filed by complainant, which has been dismissed on 4.6.2019 and under the provision of law, present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copies of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C1, Ex.C2, copy of pass book Ex.C3, copy of pamphlet regarding insurance of op no.1 Ex.C4, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C5 and newspaper cutting Ex.C6.
7. On the other hand, op no.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Kirpal Singh, Branch Manager as Ex.R1 and copy of statement of account Ex.R2. Op no.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. S.K. Malhotra, Divisional Manager as Ex.R3 and copy of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R4.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
9. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. From the copy of pass book of complainant, it is evident that on 31.07.2018, an amount of Rs.3496.49 was debited from his account by op no.2 for insuring cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. From the copy of statement of account placed on record by op no.2 bank Ex.R2, it is also evident that premium amount of Rs.3496.49 which was deducted by op no.2 bank on 31.07.2018 was refunded back in the account of complainant on 27.06.2019. The said statement of account of complainant reflects that said premium amount was refunded back in his account after about 11 months. In this regard, op no.2 bank has taken plea that as per clause 6.3.1 of revised operational guidelines of PMFBY, the aadhar card had been made mandatory for availing crop insurance from Kharif 2017 onward and the information regarding insurance could not be uploaded in the portal of op no.1 due to want of adhar card and as such, the premium amount was remitted back in the account of complainant. Though, op no.2 bank has remitted back the said premium amount to the complainant but said amount has been remitted back after a period of 11 months of its deduction and op no.2 in its reply as well as in affidavit has not averred that they ever asked the complainant to deposit his adhar card with op no.2 bank as same is mandatory for insurance of crop. On the other hand, it is specific stand of op no.1 insurance company that since op no.1 did not receive any premium for insurance of crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 therefore, op no.1 is not liable to pay any claim for the damage of crop of complainant. It is also proved on record that premium amount was not remitted in the account of op no.1 insurance company, therefore, op no.1 has rightly averred that op no.1 insurance company is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant.
10. Now the main question arises for consideration that whether there was any damage to the crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 or not and if it is proved on record that there was any damage to the crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 then certainly only op no.2 bank is only liable to pay the claim to the complainant even if his crop is not insured with op no.1 insurance company. In this regard, though complainant has averred that cotton crop sown in about seven acres of agricultural land in Kharif, 2018 was damaged due to attack of white bees and other natural calamities, but however, there is nothing on file to prove the damage to the said crop of complainant. The complainant has not placed on file any report of agricultural department or any other agency to prove damage to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant has also failed to prove on record that there was even loss of crop in his village Malikpura in Kharif, 2018 season and any other farmer has received any claim amount for the damage of crop of Kharif, 2018. So, when there is nothing on record to prove any damage to the said crop of complainant, then op no.2 bank cannot be held liable to pay any claim amount to the complainant and in absence of any report of damage to the crop of complainant, the op no.2 bank is liable to be exonerated for above said lapse of late refund of premium amount to the complainant.
11. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint against the opposite parties and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. 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:07.07.2022. District Consumer Disputes
JK Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
