BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 378 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 18.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 26.07.2021.
Ram Niwas, aged about 42 years son of Shri Hari Singh, resident of village Kheri, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
……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 Rampura Dhillon, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amendedunder Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. JASWANT SINGH…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vinod Beniwal, 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 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) on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist having his agricultural land measuring 32 kanals comprised in Khewat No.106, Khatauni No. 267, rectangle No. 86, Killa No.2,3(16-), 8,9(16-0), 12,13(16-0), 18,19 (16-0) situated in village Kheri, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2011-12 and he is wholly dependent upon the agricultural income in all respect. The complainant is having his account with op no.2 bearing No.2093008800009780. It is further averred that as per scheme of Central Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna, the cotton and millet crops sown in the land of complainant were insured with the op no.1 against loss, damages of the crop by natural reasons and accordingly, amounts of Rs.437.25 and Rs.1457.49 (total Rs.1894.74) were deducted on 31.07.2018 by op no.2 from his account and the said amount was transferred to the account of op no.1. The complainant had sown crops of cotton and millet in about four acres of land and said crops were damaged due to attack of white bees and other natural calamities, but the ops have refused to pay insurance claim to the complainant due to the reason that at the time of preparing the report and insurance papers of the crop, the village of land of complainant was wrongly shown as Hanzira instead of Kheri which is due to the negligence on the part of bank employees/ op no.2. That complainant approached the ops and requested to pay compensation for the damage to his insured crops, but they did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of ops. The complainant is entitled to claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) i.e. Rs.50,000/- per acre alongwith interest besides compensation for mental agony, harassment and is also entitled to litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written version explaining objective of the scheme and also raised certain preliminary objections such as non maintainability of complaint 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 the Government, no survey no quantification of loss, no privity of contract, non impleading of necessary parties etc. On merits, it is submitted that op no.1 used to do the insurance of crop on the information supplied by the Nodal Bank, i.e. Punjab National Bank i.e. op no.2 and there is no direct contract between the complainant and op no.1 as the present crop insurance is done under the group insurance scheme as per the terms and conditions of the Pardhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna. The op no.1 had never received the premium for the insurance of the corp in the land of complainant situated in village Kheri, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta and same was not insured with answering op. The banker of complainant has uploaded the name of village as Hanjira in place of Kheri on the National Crop Insurance Portal and did not make any effort to rectify the mistake and to correct the name of village in the Portal before the closure of the portal. After closure of the portal, no correction can be made. It is further submitted that complainant has not specified that in how much area he had sown millet crop and in how much area cotton crop was sown. The op no.1 had paid the claim for the loss to the cotton crop to the farmers of village Hanjira. As the land of complainant has been shown in village Hanjira, an amount of Rs.12949/- for the loss of cotton crop in 1.012 hectare as per loss assessment by the authorities in village Hanjira has been paid through Punjab National Bank. It was the duty of op no.2 bank to credit the amount in the account of complainant. The crop of millet was sown in 0.67 hectare for which no claim has been paid as no loss to millet was ever reported in village Hanjira. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 also filed separate written version and submitted that as per the term of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) scheme, which was launched by Prime Minister of India on 13.02.2016, 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 paid to op no.1 insurance company by the Bank. In the present case, the Bank has debited the amount of Rs.1894.74 from the account of complainant and has credited the same to the account of op no.1 as premium of the insurance. All the information required by op no.1 including Annexure-C was sent to the insurance company as per rules. The op no.1 has never informed the complainant or the Bank regarding any discrepancy in the record or information sent by the Bank. Till date, the answering op has no knowledge that on what ground, the claim has been rejected by the insurance company. It is further submitted that complainant has concealed the true facts from the Commission. The complainant had received the claim amount for Kharif, 2018 on 24.05.2019 which has not been disclosed by the complainant intentionally. It is further submitted that it is the complainant to prove that he has sown the crop of cotton and millet and in which Killas of land by producing strict proof. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. Complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and also affidavit of his wife Smt. Manbhari as Ex.PW1/B. He has also tendered copy of application of Bank moved to the Tehsildar, Nathusari Chopta for entrance and confirmation of mutation Ex.C1, copy of statement of account Ex.C2, copy of detail of insurance particulars of complainant Ex.C3, copy of adhar card Ex.C4 and copy of statement of account Ex.C5.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. S.K. Malhotra, Divisional Manager as Ex.RW1/A, copy of insurance particulars uploaded on portal Ex.R1, copy of relevant clauses of insurance scheme Ex.R2, copy of minutes of the meeting Ex.R6.
7. Learned counsel for op no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Dev Dutt, Branch Manager as Ex.RW2/A and copy of statement of account Ex.R7.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
9. The complainant in order to prove that he is agriculturist having four acres of agricultural land in village Kheri, Tehsil and District Sirsa and has obtained crop loan from op no.2 bank has placed on file copy of application of Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Rampura Dhillon moved to the Tehsildar Nathusari Chopta as Ex.C1 wherein it is mentioned that Ram Niwas son of Hari Singh, resident of village Kheri has been sanctioned loan of Rs.2,60,000/- for the purpose of crop loan under PNB Krishan Card for agricultural purposes and has mortgaged his 32 kanals of land and therefore, request for entrance and confirmation of mutation was made by the bank to the Tehsildar, Nathusari Chopta. From the said application Ex.C1, it is clearly evident that complainant is having his agricultural land in village Kheri and not in village Hanjira. The op no.2 bank deducted premium amounts of Rs.1457.49 and Rs.437.25 from the account of complainant on 31.7.2018 for insuring his crops with op no.1 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, as is evident from copy of statement of account Ex.C2. But however, in the portal applicant ID, the crop insured area of crops Cotton and Pearl Millet of the complainant has been shown in village Hanjira instead of village Kheri as is evident from Ex.C3 copy of insurance details given by op bank. The op no.1 insurance company has also placed on file copy of detail of farmers whose crops were got insured by op no.2 bank through portal and on the portal, the land of the complainant has been shown in village Hanjira, whereas complainant admittedly is having his agricultural land in village Kheri. From Ex.C3, copy of insurance details of bank, it is clearly proved that complainant had sown crops of cotton and millet during Kharif, 2018, but name of village of his land has been wrongly mentioned by op no.2 bank in the insurance portal as village Hanjira instead of Kheri.
10. According to op no.1, as the land of complainant has been shown in village Hanjira, an amount of Rs.12,949/- for the loss of cotton crop in 1.012 hectare as per loss assessment by the authorities in village Hanjira has been paid through Punjab National Bank. From the copy of statement of account Ex.C2, it is also evident that an amount of Rs.12,950/- was credited in the account of complainant on 24.5.2019 as PMFBY claim of Kharif, 2018 and this fact has not been disclosed by complainant in his complaint or in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. The complainant has also not proved on record by leading and convincing evidence, that he suffered much loss than the amount of Rs.12,950/- due to damage of his cotton crop in 1.012 hectare. The complainant has also not specifically mentioned that in how much area cotton crop was sown by him and in how much area, millet crop was sown by him in Kharif, 2018. But from his insurance detail available with op no.2 bank placed on record as Ex.C3 and from the version of op no.1 insurance company, it is proved on record that complainant had sown cotton crop in 1.01210 hectare of land and pearl millet crop in remaining 0.60729 hectare of land. The complainant has claimed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the damage to his above said crops, but he has failed to prove on record actual loss to him. The complainant has been paid an amount of Rs.12,950/- for the loss of cotton crop and in absence of any credible evidence regarding actual loss, it seems that said amount has been rightly paid to the complainant which is proper and justified amount though complainant has failed to disclose about payment of the said amount.
11. In so far as claim amount for the loss of millet crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 is concerned, the complainant has also not specifically mentioned that how much loss he has suffered due to damage of his millet crop in 0.60729 hectare of land. The complainant has placed on file affidavit of his wife Smt. Manbhari as Ex.PW1/B, in which she has stated that she is an agriculturist having agricultural land in village Kheri and that as per scheme of the Central Government i.e. Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna, the cotton and bajri crops sown in the land of deponent was insured with op no.1 insurance company against loss, damage of the crop by natural reasons and causes. She has further stated that she has received her claim amount of above said insurance of the same season for which the complainant got insured his crop and claim sheet is attached. She has also not specifically mentioned that how much acres of agricultural land she owns and whether she owns land equal to the complainant or not. From the copy of her statement of account Ex.C5, it is evident that Rs.18,455.91 and Rs.5571.38 were credited in her account on account of PMFBY Claim of Kharif, 2018 on 24.5.2019. Though, complainant has sought claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the damage to his crops of cotton and millet but he has not led any cogent and convincing evidence to prove actual loss due to damage of his crops. He has also not placed on file any report of agricultural department showing actual loss due to damage to his crops of Kharif, 2018 but the factum of loss of crops cannot be denied in toto since wife of complainant has received two claims amounts of Rs.18,455.91 and Rs.5571.38 as PMFBY claim of Kharif, 2018 which is sufficient to draw an inference that there was also loss to the crops of complainant in Kharif, 2018. As already mentioned, the complainant has already received an amount of Rs.12,950/- for the loss of cotton crop in 1.01210 hectare of land and as already discussed in absence of any cogent and convincing evidence regarding actual loss, it seems that complainant has been rightly paid said amount of Rs.12,950/- for the loss of cotton crop in the above said area of land and now the loss to the complainant for damage to his millet crop in Kharif, 2018 in 0.60729 area is only to be assessed. The complainant had sown millet crop in his about 1.5 acres of agricultural land and in our view, lumpsum amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of loss to be paid to the complainant alongwith interest will be proper and justified. Besides, this amount of Rs.15,000/-, the complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony and is also entitled to litigation expenses.
12. Now the questions arises as to whether which of the opposite parties is liable to pay above said amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of loss besides compensation amount for harassment etc. to the complainant? The op no.1 insurance company and op no.2 bank tried to shift liability on each other. Admittedly, the op no.2 bank has wrongly entered the name of village of complainant as Hanjira instead of Kheri on the insurance portal. In this regard, op no.1 insurance company has relied upon clause 17.2 of the guidelines of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojana, which reads as under:-
“Consolidated declaration/ proposal formats to be submitted physically/ electronically by Nodal banks/ Branches shall contain details about Insurance Unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area insured of the farmers, number and category of farmers covered (small and marginal or other) and number of farmers under other categories (SC/ST/others)/ Women alongwith their bank account dertails etc. (bank/ their branches) as per the application for provided on the National Crop Insurance Portal. Banks are required to upload the insured farmers’ data mandatorily on the National Crop Insurance Portal. No other platform shall be used for uploading/ submission of farmers’ data. Those farmers whose data is uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal shall only be eligible for insurance coverage and accordingly the premium subsidy will also be released. 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.”
13. Further more, the op no.1 insurance company has relied clause 24.2 of the said guidelines according to which 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. Further, the insurance company op no.1 has also relied upon copy of the Minutes of the 4th Meeting of State Level Grievance Committee held on 14.1.2021, wherein in 3612 cases of village mismatch, Committee recommended that Bank have to pay the claim.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.2 bank has contended that as per clause 19 (XXII) of notification dated 30.3.2018 issued by Haryana Govt. regarding PMFBY Scheme, 2018-2019, 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 cutoff 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. We have found substance in this contention of learned counsel for op no.2 bank because there is nothing on record to prove that insurance company op no.1 verified the data of the complainant as provided by the bank independently within above said stipulated period. The clauses of scheme as relied upon by learned counsel for op no.1 would have been applicable in this case, if the complainant would have not been paid the above said amount of Rs.12,950/- as loss for cotton crop by op no.1 on the ground of mismatch of his village name. Since the amount of loss for the cotton crop has been paid by insurance company to the complainant, op no.1 insurance company is also liable to pay insurance claim amount for the loss of millet crop of complainant and op no.1 cannot deny to pay the claim amount to the complainant for the loss of millet crop on the ground of mistake of op no.2 bank regarding mismatch of village name of complainant when the op no.1 insurance company has already paid claim amount to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018. So, the above said clauses relied upon by learned counsel for op no.1 are not applicable in this case. As such, op no.1 insurance company is liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest for the loss of his millet crop of Kharif, 2018. However, the amount of compensation and litigation expenses to be paid to the complainant in equal share by both the ops i.e. insurance company op no.1 and op no.2 bank to the complainant since due to mistake of op no.2 bank, which has not been got corrected by op no.1 within stipulated period, the complainant has to suffer harassment and mental agony and complainant cannot be allowed to suffer due to mistake either of op no.1 or of op no.2.
15. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint against both the opposite parties. We direct the opposite party no.1 insurance company to pay the above said amount of Rs.15,000/- for the loss of millet crop to the complainant of kharif, 2018 alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 18.7.2019 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which above said amount of Rs.15,000/- will carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual realization. Further, we direct both the ops i.e. op no.1 insurance company and op no.2 bank to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant in equal share within above said period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Commission. President,
Dated:26.07.2021. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
Typed by:
Jagdish Kumar (Stenographer)
