Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/88/2020

Sampuran Singh S/o Bahal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

Love Kumar

27 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:     88 of 2020.

                                                                   Date of institution:         20.02.2020.

                                                                   Date of decision:  27.04.2022

 

Sampuran Singh s/o Shri Bahal Singh, aged about 45 years, r/o village Bakana (Shrifgarh), Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
2. Central Bank of India, G.T. Road, Shahabad Markanda, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, through its Branch manager.
3. Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture & FW, Government of Haryana, Sector-7, Kurukshetra.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Love Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Narinder Rohilla, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

                   Shri Gaurav Bathla, Project Officer for Opposite Party No.3.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is permanent resident of village Bakana (Shrifgarh), Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra and is having about 9 acres of land in said village. He was having its Agriculture Loan Account with the OP No.2 bearing No.1658348566. The complainant sown paddy crop in the season of Khariff 2018 in said 9 acres land after incurring Rs.10,000/- per acre on preparation of fields for crops, paniri, electricity bills etc. and got insured the same under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna from OP No.1 through OP No.2 after paying premium of Rs.3942/- to OP No.1 through OP No.2 on 31.07.2018. There were heavy rains in the area during the period of August 2018 to September 2018, due to which, crops standing in the fields had been destroyed. Thereafter, the complainant duly informed regarding this loss to the OPs and a team consisting of officials of OPs visited the spot and assessed the loss and passed a claim to the tune of Rs.36172/- per hectare of village Bakana (Shrifgarh), (Hadbast No.93), Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, but the OP No.1 paid only Rs.13857/- on 15.05.2019 in the account of complainant as compensation. When the complainant approached the OPs about paying the less claim amount, then it had been revealed that the OP No.2 had mentioned the wrong address of complainant as well as location of land/crop as village Babain (Hadbast No.145), District Kurukshetra, instead of village Bakana (Shrifgarh), (Hadbast No.93), Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. He visited many times to the OPs No.1 & 2 as well as office of OP No.3 to pay the balance compensation amount, as per assessed amount of Rs.36172/- per hectare, which comes to Rs.1,17,943/- (Rs.131800.80 – 13857.81), but nothing had been done in this regard by the OPs, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, causing him mental agony, harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.                On receipt of complaint, its notice was ordered against all the OPs.

4.                OP No.1 appeared before the Commission and filed its written statement raising preliminary objections regarding No Coverage of alleged loss; Objective of Scheme; Coverage of Farmers; Coverage of Crops; General Exclusion; Not maintainable for want of jurisdiction; Non Intimation; Non submission of proof of loss or weather report; Limited Coverage as per scheme; Yield based claims are decided by Government; No Survey, no quantification of loss; privity of contract; Impleading of necessary parties; Complicated facts and law of contract; Right to file amended Reply reserved and Not covering date of loss. On merits, it is submitted that after getting the intimation of loss, Government appointed experts and surveyors had assessed the loss of crop of farmers and as per that, complainant suffered crop loss to the tune of Rs.13857/- and as per guidelines of Government, said loss has already been paid by the OP No.1 directly in the bank OP No.2. Furthermore, it is prime obligation of OP No.2 to fulfill the data of farmer in the Portal and if there was any discrepancy in farmer record and data uploaded by OP No.2, then only OP No.2 is to be liable for the claim, if any and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

5.                The OP No.2, in its written statement, admitting having loan account bearing No.1658348566 with it as well as paying premium amount of Rs.3942/- for insurance of khariff fasal standing in the land measuring 2.681 acres to OP No.1. It is further submitted that OP No.2 committed no deficiency in service regarding the complainant, as OP No.2 paid premium on behalf of complainant A/C No.1658348566Land-2.681 acres, Premium about Rs.3942/- under Total RTGS amount Rs.6,57,505/- on 07.8.2019 vide UTR No.CBINH-18219174510 in respect of insurance of crops of the farmers under the Prime Minister Kissan Bima Yojna. Furthermore, as and when the notice of Hon’ble Commission received to the OP No.2, it wrote a letter Ref No.BM/Shahbad/2019-20/00 dated 21.09.2020 and further reminder Ref. No.BM/Shahabad/2019-20/00 dated 01.10.2020 to OP No.1 for doing the needful of the claim of complainant and about the status of the claim of above farmer, but till date, there was no communication/ letter received to the OP No.2 from OP No.1. There was legally no role to play on the part of OP No.2 qua payment of claim qua crop loss to the complainant.

6.                The OP No.3 in its written statement stated the farmer gave an intimation on 24.9.2018 for paddy crop and same was sent to insurance company to assess the loss (A-2) and concerned BAO/ADO/BTM/ATM was eye witness in the survey. Further the loss assessment report directly submit to the insurance company, but in the village claim arised on the basis of average yield i.e. 1905.73 k.g. per hectare while the threshold yield 3752.46 k.g. hectare. That’s why the claim arise Rs.36172.26 per hectare and this report was sent timely to The Director General Agriculture and F.W. Haryana for settlement of claim.

7.                The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed his evidence.

8.                On the other hand, the OP No.1, in support of its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-3 to Ex.R-5 and closed its evidence. The OP No.2, in support of its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A along with documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and closed its evidence. The OP No.3, in support of its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW3A and closed its evidence.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

10.              Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that complainant is permanent resident of above said address and having about 9 acres of land in said village. He was having its Agriculture Loan Account with the OP No.2 bearing No.1658348566. The complainant sown paddy crop in the season of Khariff 2018 in said 9 acres land after incurring Rs.10,000/- per acre and got insured the same under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna from OP No.1 through OP No.2 after paying premium of Rs.3942/- to OP No.1 through OP No.2 on 31.07.2018. There were heavy rains in the area during the period of August 2018 to September 2018, due to which, crops standing in the fields had been destroyed. Thereafter, the complainant duly informed regarding this loss to the OPs and a team consisting of officials of OPs visited the spot and assessed the loss and passed a claim to the tune of Rs.36172/- per hectare of village Bakana (Shrifgarh), (Hadbast No.93), Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, but the OP No.1 paid only Rs.13857/- on 15.05.2019 in the account of complainant as compensation. When the complainant approached the OPs about paying the less claim amount, then it had been revealed that the OPs had mentioned the wrong address of complainant as well as location of land/crop as village Babain (Hadbast No.145), District Kurukshetra, instead of village Bakana (Shrifgarh), (Hadbast No.93), Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. He visited many times to the OPs No.1 & 2 as well as office of OP No.3 to pay the balance compensation amount, but all in vain.

11.              Learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that after getting the intimation of loss, Government appointed experts and surveyors had assessed the loss of crop of farmers and as per that, complainant suffered crop loss to the tune of Rs.13857/- and as per guidelines of Government, said loss has already been paid by the OP No.1 directly in the bank OP No.2. Furthermore, it is prime obligation of OP No.2 to fulfill the data of farmer in the Portal and if there was any discrepancy in farmer record and data uploaded by OP No.2, then only OP No.2 is to be liable for the claim. To support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case law titled Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & Anr., Petitioners Versus Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & Anr., Respondents, Revision Petition Nos.2673 of 2013 with Revision Petition No.1226 to 1230, 1287 to 1289, 1947 to 1965, 1967, 1968, 2032, 2033, 2035 to 2046 of 2014 and Revision Petition No.2695 of 2013 in Appeal No.761 of 2012. D.O.D. 03.10.2015 (NCDRC, New Delhi).

12.              Learned counsel for the Op No.2 argued that OP No.2 OP No.2 paid premium on behalf of complainant A/C No.1658348566Land-2.681 acres, Premium about Rs.3942/- under Total RTGS amount Rs.6,57,505/- on 07.8.2019 vide UTR No.CBINH-18219174510 in respect of insurance of crops of the farmers under the Prime Minister Kissan Bima Yojna. Furthermore, as and when the notice of Hon’ble Commission received to the OP No.2, it wrote a letter Ref No.BM/Shahbad/2019-20/00 dated 21.09.2020 and further reminder Ref. No.BM/Shahabad/2019-20/00 dated 01.10.2020 to OP No.1 for doing the needful of the claim of complainant and about the status of the claim of above farmer, but till date, there was no communication/ letter received to the OP No.2 from OP No.1.

13.              Learned counsel for the OP No.3 argued that the farmer gave an intimation on 24.9.2018 for paddy crop and same was sent to insurance company to assess the loss. Further the loss assessment report directly submitted to the insurance company, but in the village claim arised on the basis of average yield i.e. 1905.73 k.g. per hectare while the threshold yield 3752.46 k.g. hectare. That’s why the claim arise Rs.36172.26 per hectare and this report was sent timely to The Director General Agriculture and F.W. Haryana for settlement of claim.

14.              There is no dispute that the complainant availed agricultural loan from OP No.1, under account No.1658348566 Ex.C10. In the Khariff year 2018, the complainant had sown paddy crops in his land and OP No.1 got insured the same with the OP No.2, under Government Scheme “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” (hereinafter referred as PMFBY) and OP No.1 deducted the premium amount of Rs.3942/- on 31.07.2018, from the account of complainant and paid the same to the OP No.2 towards PMFBY for Kharif year 2018, vide Statement of Account Ex.C10.

15.               As per complainant, due to heavy rains in the month of August 2018 to September 2018, crops standing in 9 acres of his land, had been destroyed and in this regard, the OPs assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs.36172/- and paid only Rs.13857, instead of total compensation of Rs.1,17,943/-. The complainant further alleged that OP No.2 had sent the wrong address of complainant as well as location of land/crop to OP No.1, as village Babain (Hadbast No.145), District Kurukshetra, instead of village Bakana (Shrifgarh), (Hadbast No.93), Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. To prove the same, the complainant has referred the document Ex.C5, wherein, the name of village of the complainant Sampuran Singh has been shown as “Babain” instead of “Bakana”. This document was also produced by the OP No.1 as Ex.R4 on the case file. There is no dispute that it was the primarily duty of only OP No.2 to upload the data of farmer concerned on the Government Portal regarding PMFBY. In his reply, the OP No.1 submitted in Para No.6 that it is prime obligation of OP No.2 to fulfill the data of farmer in the Portal and if there was any discrepancy in farmer record and data uploaded by OP No.2, then only OP No.2 is to be liable for the claim. So, from document Ex.C5 (Ex.R4), it is evident that OP No.2 had wrongly uploaded on the Government Portal, name of village of complainant as Babain instead of Bakana, therefore, the Inspecting Team assessed the loss to the crops of the complainant, as per village Babain instead of Bakana.

16.              The complainant further contended that the OP No.2 bank is liable to pay the amount of his claim, if any, for his own above mistake/wrong. In this regard, he produced copy of “Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) as Ex.C9, and stated that extract part of sub-Clause 17.2 of Clause 17 “Collection of Proposals and Premium from Farmers”, is relevant, which reads as under:-

          “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”.

17.              So as per above guidelines, for any mistake in uploading the date of farmer concerned on the Government Portal regarding PMFBY, the OP No.2 bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any to the farmer concerned. View of this Commission is fully supported by the case law cited (supra) by counsel for the OP No.1, in the case of Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & Anr., Petitioners Versus Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & Anr., Respondents (NC), wherein, it is held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) Crop Insurance Scheme- Insurance premium debited in loan account of agriculturists by the bank by receiving service charges on premium collected from agriculturists – Damage of groundnut crops – Repudiation of claim – Deficiency in service – Complaint allowed against bank in appeal – Legality of – There was relationship of consumer and service provider between agriculturists and bank – As per Clause 19 of guidelines to Financial Institutions, Financial Institutions were to be only responsible for all omissions and commissions committed by them – Prima facie, error has been committed by bank in remitting amount of premium recovered from agriculturists while sending it to insurance company in wrong name of village of complainants – Bank rightly held liable to reimburse all the losses.

18.              In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP No.2 has wrongly reported the name of village of the complainant to the OP No.1 and keeping in view the abovementioned case law cited (supra) as well as Operational Guidelines Ex.C9, mentioned above, for his mis-reporting/mistake in uploading the wrong data of complainant on the Govt. Portal of PMFBY, the OP No.2 is liable to pay the claim of the complainant, if any.

19.               Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? The complainant alleged that he sown paddy crop in the season of Khariff 2018 in said 9 acres and in this regard, the complainant produced jamabandhi and Khasra Girdawari as Ex.C1 & Ex.C2, but these documents do not corroborate the version of the complainant in any manner, whereas, on the other hand, the OP N.2 produced document Ex.R2 on the case file, in which, the land of complainant was shown in village Bakana as 2.681 hectare i.e. 6.62 acres (1 Hectare = 2.47 acres). As per Village wise A. yield, Threshold Yield, Sum Insured and claim of paddy crop under PMFBY for Kharif 2018-19 as Ex.C6 and in that document at Sr. No.24, Threshold Yield per hectare of village Bakana (village of complainant) was shown as 3752.46 and claim amount was shown as Rs.36172.26 per hectare. Since as per record, the complainant had sown paddy crop in 2.681 hectare of land, therefore, the claim amount, to be paid to the complainant, is as under:-

 

                   Claim amount                =       Rs.36172.26 per hectare

                   1 Hectare                       =       2.47 acre.

                   Rs. 36172.26 / 2.47       =       Rs.14644.63 per acre

                   Rs.14644.63 x 6.62 acres        =       Rs.96947/-

         

20.              So, in view of above calculation, the complainant is entitled to receive the total claim amount of Rs.96947/-, from the OP No.2, for the loss suffered by him in 2.681 acres of land. Since the complainant himself admitted the fact of receiving part claim amount of Rs.13857/- on 15.05.2019, therefore, after deducting the said amount of Rs.13857/-, from the total claim amount of Rs.96,947/-, net balance payable claim amount comes to Rs.83090/-, which will be paid by the OP No.2, being deficient one. So far as, the complaint filed against OPs No.1 & 3 is concerned; it may be stated here that no deficiency in service is proved against them, therefore, complaint filed against OPs No.1 & 3, is liable to be dismissed.

21.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OP No.2 and dismiss the same against OPs No.1 & 3, and direct the OP No.2 to make the payment of Rs.83090/-, to the complainant. The OP No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.2 along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OP No.2 is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OP No.2. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:27.04.2022.

    

 

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.