BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 98 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 17.02.2020.
Date of Decision : 24.07.2023.
Raman Pal, aged about 63 years son of Shri Sanwat Ram son of Ram Chand, resident of village Kheowali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Oriental Insurance Company Janta Bhawan Road, Near Anaj Mandi, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Manager/ Proprietor.
2. State Bank of India, Odhan Branch, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director of Agriculture Department, Sirsa (Haryana).
...…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. Mukesh Kumar Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, 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 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 complainant is he is an agriculturist having agricultural land measuring 48 kanals in village Kheowali, District Sirsa and is having his account bearing number 31322409531 with op no.2. That complainant sown kharif crop of 2017 and kahrif crop of 2018 in above mentoned land. The op no.1 insured the crops of complainant and obtained premium amounts of Rs.760.50 for kharif, 2017 and Rs.1516 for kharif, 2018 and cotton crop was completely destroyed. That at the time of insurance of crops, the op no.1 assured to the complainant that in case of damage to his crop, they will make payment at the rate of Rs.17,360/- per acre but when complainant visited the office of the ops to demand insurance claim they did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and finally refused to make compensation of Rs.2,08,320/- to the complainant. It is further submitted that in case of any fault on behalf of op no.2 bank for untimely deduction of premium, then op no.2 bank is liable to pay the above said insurance claim to him. That in this manner, ops no. 1 and 2 have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment to him. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as regard insurance of the Kharif 2018 crop grown by the complainant, as per record of the answering op the area of village Nuhianwali belonging to the present complainant was uploaded on the portal and not of village Kheowali. Therefore, there was/ is no privity of insurance contract between the complainant and answering op. It is further submitted that crop in question belonging to the complainant in respect of village Kheowali was not got insured with answering op rather village Nuhianwali was uploaded on the portal. That in a meeting of State Legal Grievance Committee held on 14.01.2021 it was resolved that where village name found to be mismatched, the bank shall pay the claim to the farmers as per guidelines of PMFBY at clause no. XXIV (4) (e) for the year Kharif 2016 to Kharif 2018 of operational guidelines and clause 17.2 for the year Rabi 2019 and Rabi 2019-2020 of revised operational guidelines of PMFBY and also where the data is not uploaded on the portal of the bank, the concerned bank is liable to pay the compensation to concerned farmers. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that it is the liability of op no.1 to indemnify the loss of the complainant, if any because the crops of complainant has been insured with it and op no.1 has charged insurance premium on account of insurance of the crops of complainant and op no.2 has not charged any penny for itself on account of any insurance of crops of complainant. It is further submitted that as per insurance policy, it is the duty of op no.1 to verify the contents of the insurance uploaded by answering op and if any discrepancy is found, op no.1 may reject the proposal within two months from the date of its receipt. The op no.1 has failed to report any discrepancy and has not refunded the amount of premium received by it. 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. Complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, insurance details provided by the bank to the complainant as Ex.C2, Ex.C3, jamabandis for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C4, Ex.C5, statement of account Ex.C6 and reports of Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa Ex.C7 and Ex.C8.
7. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R1, village wise tabulation sheets Ex.R2, Ex.R3 and Haryana Govt. notifications dated 13.06.2017 and 30.03.2018 Ex.R4 and Ex.R5.
8. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Branch Manager as Ex.R1 and statement of account Ex.R2. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Puja, Incharge Legal Hub as Ex. RW1/A, minutes of the meeting Ex. RW1/1 and operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex. RW1/2.
9. 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.
10. The complainant in order to prove loss to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and Kharif, 2018 has placed on file report of Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa as Ex.C7 and Ex.C8. According to report Ex.C7, the average yield of cotton crop of village Kheowali in Kharif, 2017 was 347.46 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Odhan was 639.18 Kgs. per hectare. Further according to report Ex.C8, the average yield of cotton crop of village Kheowali in Kharif, 2018 was 242.39 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of Block Odhan was 602.64 Kgs. per hectare. Since the average yield of cotton crop of village Kheowali of Kharif, 2017 and 2018 was less than threshold yield as per above said reports Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant in kharif, 2017 and 2018. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 in Sirsa was Rs.69,000/- as per Haryana Govt. notification Ex.R4 and sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 was Rs.72,000/- as per notification Ex.R5. The complainant had sown cotton crops in Kharif, 2017 and Kharif, 2018 in his 48 kanals of land which is equal to 2.4 hectares of land. So, as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.75,580/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and insurance claim amount of Rs.1,03,278/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2018. The op no.1 insurance company has specifically asserted that op no.2 bank has wrongly uploaded the village name of complainant on the crop insurance portal as village Nuhianwali instead of Kheowali and op no.2 bank has not denied this fact. So, as per Clause 17.2 of the 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. Therefore, as per said clause and minutes of the meeting dated 14.01.2021, the op no.2 bank only is liable to pay the above said amounts to the complainant. In this regard, 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 also 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 said judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission Haryana is also applicable in this case.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint qua opposite party no.2 bank and direct the op no.2 to pay the claim amounts of Rs.75,580/- and Rs.1,03,278/- to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and 2018 respectively within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the above said amounts 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 complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua ops no.1 and 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. 24.07.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
