BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 617 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 15.10.2019.
Date of Decision : 09.08.2022.
Jatinder Singh aged about 55 years son of Sh. Jagraj Singh, resident of village Neelanwali, Tehsil Mandi Dabwali District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Sirsa.
2. Punjab and Sindh Bank Branch Mandi Dabwali, Sirsa through its authorized person/ Branch Manager, Sirsa.
3. Deputy Director of Agriculture Department, Sirsa (Haryana).
...…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. Parvinder Gaba, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Wadhwa, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018.
2. The brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist and is having land measuring 8 acres 2 kanals ( as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) situated in village Neelanwali, Tehsil Dabwali District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 and is totally dependent upon agricultural income. He has further alleged that he is having his bank account bearing No. 03111600010136 in the bank of op no.2. The op no.2 bank has deducted premium amount of Rs.2190.30 on 31.7.2018 and credited the same in the account of op no.1 insurance company for insurance of his crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant further alleged that complainant sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 which was damaged due to disaster of natural calamities whereas ops have shown paddy crop in the record and insurance company has not compensated the complainant for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018. Hence, present complaint seeking insurance claim amount of Rs.4,12,500/- (approximately) at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre for the loss of his crop and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and unnecessary harassment caused by ops and also an amount of Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses from ops.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding objective of scheme, coverage of farmers, coverage of crops, general exclusions, not maintainability for want of jurisdiction, non intimation, non submission of proof of loss or weather report, limited coverage as per scheme, yield basis claims are decided by Government, no survey no quantification of loss, no privity of contract and non impleading of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that had the premium been deducted from the account of the complainant his crop would have been insured and his account particulars for the purpose of insurance would have been uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal of PMFBY by the nodal bank but his account particulars are not uploaded on the portal. Thus, the crop of complainant was not insured with answering op. It is further submitted that no premium for crop of complainant of village Neelanwali was ever remitted to answering op, therefore, op no.1 is not liable to pay any claim amount and compensation to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding no cause of action, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as provided under Section 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, maintainability, suppression of material facts, estoppal, reference of grievance to the district level monitoring committee etc. On merits, it is submitted that para no.3 of the complaint is matter of record to the extent of debit of crop insurance premium for paddy crop from the crop loan account of complainant on 31.07.2018 and the remittance of same to the insurance company. It is submitted that premium of paddy crop was debited because the complainant has disclosed that he has sown paddy crop in his land. The complainant has declared that he has sown paddy crops in the whole of his land at the time of availing the loan and as such paddy crop of complainant was insured. It is further submitted that neither any intimation regarding sowing of cotton crop nor intimation about any loss of crop to the answering op was given by complainant and complainant is not entitled to get any amount of compensation from answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. OP no.3 also filed separate written version raising certain preliminary objections as taken by op no.1. It is submitted that answering op is only liable to conduct the CCE’s experiments (crop cutting experiment) and yield basis claims are 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 the answering op within specific time period as prescribed in the operational guidelines of the Government of India. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copies of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C1, khasra girdawari Ex.C2, statement of account Ex.C3, detail of the insurance provided by bank Ex.C4, Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department notification dated 30.3.2018 Ex.C5, report of Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmers Welfare department, Sirsa Ex.C6 and adhar card Ex.C7.
7. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Ravinder kumar, Manager as Ex.RW1/A and assessment form for short term loan (crop loan) Ex.R1. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Virender Kumar, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R2 and clauses of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R3 to Ex.R7, minutes of 4th meeting held on 14.01.2021 Ex.R8. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa Ex.R9, village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during Kharif, 2018 Ex.R10 and notification dated 30.3.2018 Ex.R11.
8. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.1, op no.2 and Sh. Satish Kumar, SA on behalf of op no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.
9. Learned counsel for complainant contended that complainant has received compensation for the loss of his cotton crop in Kharif, 2017. The complainant has never given any declaration before the bank that he has changed his crop and will sow paddy crop in the next year i.e. in 2018 for which present complaint has been filed. He has further argued that premium was deducted and credited in the account of insurance company op no.1 for insurance of crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant had sown cotton crop over his agricultural land instead of paddy crop as shown in the record by op no.2 bank and prayed for compensation for the loss caused to the cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 as per report of op no.3.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 insurance company contended that crop of complainant has not been insured with it by the bank of complainant and insurance company is not at all liable to pay any compensation for the loss/ damage caused to the crop of cotton of Kharif, 2018. As per pleading of op no.2 bank, complainant has sown crop of paddy over his land and, therefore, insurance company is not at all liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and prayed that complaint qua op no.1 may be dismissed.
11. Learned counsel for op no.2 bank contended that complainant has obtained crop loan from op no.2 bank and he had declared that he will sow paddy crop over his land and no loss has been caused to the paddy crop and as such present complaint is not maintainable and same is without any cause of action. He further contended that complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing present complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2.
12. Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant on behalf of op no.3 contended that agricultural department has to assess the loss of crop to the farmers and op no.3 has already submitted its report in this regard that average yield of cotton crop in village Nilawali in Kharif, 2018 was 278.97 Kgs. per hectare and therefore, op no.3 has discharged its duty.
13. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
14. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. He has also placed on record copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2107 Ex.C1 to prove his ownership over the above mentioned agricultural land. Ex.C2 is the copy of khasra girdawari for the year 2018-2019 and Ex.C3 is copy of statement of account which reveals that on 31.07.2018 premium amount of Rs.2190.30 was deducted by the bank from account of complainant for insurance of his crop of Kharif, 2018 under PMFBY. Ex.C4 is the detail provided by the bank in which crop of complainant has been mentioned as paddy and Ex.C5 is notification of Haryana Government dated 30.3.2018 regarding PMFBY for insurance of crops of Kharif, 2018 and Rabi 2018- 2019. Complainant has also placed on file report of the agricultural department, Sirsa Ex.C6 in which it is mentioned that average yield of village Neelanwali in Kharif, 2018 was 278.97 Kgs. per hectare.
15. In rebuttal to the evidence led by complainant, op no.2 bank has tendered affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Manager as Ex.RW1/A in which he has also reiterated version of their written statement and it is mentioned in the affidavit that as per bank record, the complainant has not given any intimation for sowing of cotton crop. They have also placed on record loan document Ex.R1 in which paddy crop has been mentioned at the time of obtaining loan by the complainant. Similarly, insurance company op no.1 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Virender Kumar its Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R2 in which he has also reiterated version of their written statement that crop of complainant was not insured with op no.1. Op no.1 has also placed on file various clauses of operational guidelines of PMFBY. Ex.R3 contains clause 17.2 in which it is mentioned that for non uploading details of farmers on Portal, concerned banks/ intermediaries shall be responsible for payment of claims to them. Ex.R4 contains clause no.17.8 in which it is mentioned that declarations/ proposals and debited premium received by Insurance companies from the Banks/ PACS after the cutoff date shall be summarily rejected and the liability, if any for such declarations shall rest with the concerned bank. Ex.R5 contains clause no.24.2 in which it is mentioned that in case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/ branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting. Ex.R6 contains clause 35.5.2.9 in which it is mentioned that the Nodal Banks/ Administative offices/ Banks Branches shall also upload the details of each individual insured farmer on National Crop Insurance portal through web-form or CBS on or before final cut-off date. Ex.R7 contains clause 30 regarding Grievance Redressal Mechanism and clause 30.2 stipulates that a district level monitoring committee shall act as a grievance redressal Commission for redressal of grievances of farmers, bank, insurance company, District Authority. Department and clause 30.3 stipulates that a State level monitoring committee shall act as a grievance redressal Commission for redressal of grievances of farmers, bank, insurance company, District Authority shich does not get settled at DGRC. Ex.R8 is the minutes of 4th meeting of State Level Grievance Committee (SLGC) held on 14.01.2021 wherein it has been resolved that Bank is fully liable to pay the claim in cases where wrong crop insured due to negligence of bank or data is not uploaded on the portal by the bank.
16. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R9 in which he has reiterated the version of their reply. Op no.3 has also tendered Haryana Government notification dated 30.3.2018 regarding PMFBY for 2018-2019 and Ex.R10 is village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during Kharif, 2018 in which it is mentioned that average yield of village Nilawali in Kharif, 2018 was 278.97 Kgs. per hectare.
17. After perusal of the entire record of the case file, it is revealed that premium amount of Rs.2190.30 has been deducted from the account of complainant by op no.2 bank for insurance of crop of Kharif, 2018 of complainant and same was credited in the account of op no.1. The op no.2 bank has deducted the premium and shown paddy crop sown by complainant in its record as admitted by bank itself in its written statement as well as affidavit. Since complainant alleges that he had sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 whereas bank as per its admission deducted premium for paddy crop and more so there is entry of cotton crop in revenue record and whereas op no.2 bank has shown paddy crop in its record, therefore, insurance company no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
18. Now the question arises whether complainant has sown paddy crop or cotton crop over his land? From the perusal of evidence of complainant i.e. Khasra girdawari for the year 2018-2019 Ex.C2, it is evident that complainant has sown crop of cotton which has been recorded in the revenue record. The presumption of truth is attached to the khasra girdawari whereas op no.2 bank has not rebutted the evidence of complainant by way of examination of their Field Officer who had inspected the field of complainant and verified whether complainant has sown paddy crop or cotton crop over his land. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has also contended that complainant also received claim amount for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and has placed on file statement of account in this regard, the perusal of which also reveals that on 20.11.2018 complainant received claim amount of Rs.50,555/- for damage of his crop of Kharif, 2017 meaning thereby that bank has wrongly recorded paddy crop in its record. Complainant has established on record that he has sown cotton crop and bank has wrongly entered paddy crop in its record and as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, op no.2 bank has also not placed on record any declaration form of complainant for change of crop in 2018 whereas complainant has already received compensation for the loss of his crop of cotton in year 2017. So for the above said reasons and in view of clause 17.2 of operational guidelines of PMFBY which 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 to them, the op no.2 bank is liable to indemnify the loss caused to the complainant due to fault of op no.2 bank as they have wrongly recorded paddy crop in its record.
19. In so far as damage to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2018 is concerned, the complainant has also placed on record copy of report of Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa during the course of arguments, the perusal of which also reveals that in 2018, the average yield of cotton crop in village Nilanwali was 278.97 Kgs. per hectare whereas threshold yield in Dabwali Block was 576.36 Kgs. per hectare. Since the average yield of village Nilanwali was less than threshold yield of block Dabwali, so as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss of cotton crop in village Nilanwali in Kharif, 2018 and as such there was also loss of cotton crop to the complainant in Kharif, 2018.
20. Now the question arises to what amount of claim amount/ compensation, the complainant is entitled for? The complainant has claimed insurance claim amount of Rs.4,12,500/- approximately at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre for damage of his cotton crop in 8 acres 2 kanals of land. However, for calculation of claim amount, a formula has been given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY which is as under:-
Threshold Yield minus Actyal Yield X Sum Insured.
Threshold yield
21. The complainant owns 8 acres 2 kanals agricultural land in village Neelanwali which is equal to 3.33 hectare. As mentioned above, the threshold yield of cotton crop of block Dabwali was 576.36 Kgs. per hectare and actual yield of village of complainant Neelanwali was 278.97 Kgs. per hectare. In the document regarding sum insured of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 placed on file by op no.3, it is mentioned that sum insured for cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 in Sirsa District was Rs.72,000/- per hectare and therefore, the calculation of the claim amount for the loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 of complainant in village Neelanwali is as under:-
576.36 minus 278.97 multiple by
576.36 72,000 X 3.33 hectare = Rs. 1,23,702.94.
22. From above calculation, it is evident that complainant was entitled to the claim amount of Rs.1,23,702.94 for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in village Neelanwali. Since as per record of bank, they have shown paddy crop in their record but as per version of insurance company, data has not been uploaded on portal by bank same shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of op no.2 bank and as such, only op no.2 bank is liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.1,23,702.94 (in round figures Rs.1,23,703/-) to the complainant and no liability of ops no.1 and 3 is made out.
23. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.2 bank and direct op no.2 to pay claim amount of Rs.1,23,703/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 15.10.2019 till actual realization to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018. We also direct the opposite party no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as composite compensation for mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses to the complainant. The op no. 2 is directed to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the C.P. Act, 2019 against op no.2. However, complaint qua ops nos. 1 and 3 stands dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 09.08.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
