BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 682 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 28.11.2019.
Date of Decision : 17.07.2023.
1. Rajan Kumar aged about 35 years, 2. Ajeet Singh aged about 32 years sons of Sh. Jai Bhagwan son of Sh. Surja Ram, residents of village Rampura Dhillon, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Janta Bhawan, New Anaj Mandi, Sirsa, Teh. and Distt. Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Bank, Ding Branch, Ding. Teh. and Distt. Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Teh. and Distt. Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anjani Kumar Gupta, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainants have filed the present joint 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 complainants is that they are agriculturists having agricultural land measuring 114 kanals 2 marlas ( as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) situated in village Rampura Dhillon, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa. The complainants sown kapas (cotton) and Guar crops in Kharif season in May, 2018 in their above mentioned land. It is further averred that as complainants have raised crop loan under Kisan Credit Limit facility from op no.2 on 12.04.2017 i.e. limit of Rs.32,20,000/- of their land measuring 114 kanals 2 marlas, therefore, as per policy of the Government, the op no.2 got insured cotton and guar crops under PMFBY with op no.1. The op no.2 debited a sum of Rs.8280/- on 31.7.2018 in the account of complainants as crop insurance premium and thus cotton and guar crops was insured by op no.2 with op no.1. It is further averred that said cotton and guar crops of 2018 season of complainants was destroyed due to climate conditions. The op no.3 surveyed the fields of village Rampura Dhillon and submitted its report to the ops no.1 and 2 and op no.1 thereafter settled the claim of the farmers of village Rampura Dhillon, but very strangely declined the complainants and few other farmers to pay the insurance claim without any reason and excuse and did not pay any amount to them. That in this manner, the ops have committed gross deficiency in services towards the complainants and have caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to them. Hence, this complaint seeking claim amount of Rs.3,57,000/- from ops alongwith interest besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that after receipt of notice, the entire data portal record uploaded by banker of complainants was checked by the company and it has been found that complainants has been paid the loss to the cotton crop shown to be situated and standing at the time of insurance coverage in village Sirsa Rural by their banker and according to the report of Competent Authority about the loss, this very sum of Rs.14664/- has been calculated and paid to the complainants. The answering op cannot go and pay beyond the data received, uploaded by the bank while getting the insurance coverage about the particular farmer as contract of insurance is based upon principle of utmost good faith, hence coverage was given accordingly as per data reported/ uploaded by the bank. There was an option available with the bank to get the mistake corrected within stipulated period, if any occurred at the time of uploading the data, but particular of village Sirsa Rural for the crop insurance of coverage remained same. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.8280/- has been debited in the account of complainants on 31.07.2018 and transferred the same to op no.1 vide policy no. 4010618115154090000 for insurance of kharif crops of 2018 related to complainants. The op no.1 insured the crop of cotton of complainants. It is further submitted that complainants never visited to the answering op regarding claim of insurance rather the matter of payment of compensation is between the complainant and op no.1. That op no.1 has given claim of Rs.14664.82 in favour of complainants regarding crop of kharif, 2018 and same has been credited in their account by answering op on 10.08.2019 and complainants have concealed this fact from this Commission. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. Op no.3 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only on completion of necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by answering op within specific time period as prescribed in the operational guidelines of Government of India and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. Complainants have tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Rajan Kumar Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C8.
7. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1 and statement of account Ex.R2. OP no.1 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Puja as Ex.R3 and documednts Ex.R4 and Ex.R5. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R6 and documents Ex.R7 and Ex.R8.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.3 and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. From the copy of statement of account of complainants Ex.R2, it is proved on record that on 31.07.2018 op no.2 bank deducted amount of Rs.8280/- from the account of complainant for insurance of their cotton crop of kharif, 2018 and said amount was paid to op no.1 insurance company for insurance of said crop of complainant. Though complainants have alleged that they have sown cotton and guar crops in their said land measuring 114 kanals 2 marlas in Kharif, 2018 season but however, from the above statement of account of complainants as well as document given by bank to the complainants, it is evident that only cotton crop of complainants was got insured by the bank with the insurance company. The complainants in order to prove the fact that they have also sown guar crop alongwith cotton crop have also placed on file khasra girdawari Ex.C2 but however, there is nothing on file to prove the fact that there was any damage to the guar crop of the complainants and as such complainants are not entitled to any insurance claim for the damage of their guar crop from any of the ops. In so far as damage to the cotton crop of complainants is concerned, as per village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during Kharif, 2018 placed on file by op no.3 as Ex.R7, the average yield of cotton crop of village Rampura Dhilo in Kharif, 2018 was 276.97 kgs. per hectare and as per document Annexure A regarding threshold yield Ex.C7, the threshold yield of block Nathusari wherein the village of complainants falls was 607.14 Kgs. per hectare. Since, the average yield of cotton crop of village Rampura Dhillon was less than threshold yield of block Nathusari, therefore, as per operational guidelines of PMFBY certainly there was loss to the cotton crop of complainants in kharif, 2018. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainants contended that complainants sown cotton crop in 2.5 hectares of land and guar crop in remaining agricultural land and in this regard complainants have already placed on file khasra girdawari Ex.C2. As such, complainants are entitled to insurance claim amount for the loss of cotton crop in 2.5 hectares of land. In this regard for calculation of claim for loss of crop, a formula has been given in the operational guidelines which is as under:-
Threshold yield minus average yield X sum insured X Area
______________________________
Threshold yield.
10. The op no.3 has also placed on file Haryana Govt. Notification dated 30.03.2018 as Ex.R8 according to which the sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 was Rs.72000/- per hectare. As per above said formula, the complainants were entitled to receive total amount of Rs.97,886/- for the loss of their cotton crop in 2.5 hectares of land. The op no.1 insurance company has already paid amount of Rs.14,664.82 to the complainants on 10.08.2019 for loss of cotton crop of complainants of kharif, 2018 on the basis of loss in village Sirsa Rural allegedly uploaded on the portal by op no.2. The op no.2 bank has not denied and proved the fact that they have not wrongly uploaded the village name of complainants on the National Crop Insurance Portal. The document provided by op no.2 bank to the complainants showing details of insured Ex.C4 wherein they have shown village name of complainants as Rampura Dhillon Sirsa (Rural) is only a hand written document and has been prepared later on and is not helpful to the op no.2 bank. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula in a similar 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. As such op no.2 bank is liable to make payment of the remaining claim amount to the complainants. Therefore, complainants are entitled to remaining claim amount of Rs.83,222/- from op no.2 bank after deduction of the amount of Rs.14,664/- from the above said calculated amount of Rs.97,886/-.
11. In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.2 bank and direct the op no.2 bank to pay the above said claim amount of Rs.83,222/- to the complainants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainants will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.83,222/- from op no.2 bank alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. 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 complainants within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.1 insurance company and op no.3 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President
Dt. 17.07.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
