BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 425 of 2019
Date of Institution : 06.08.2019
Date of Decision : 26.02.2021
Subhash Chander, aged about 54 years son of Sh. Devi Lal, 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, Branch Odhan, District Sirsa through its Manager.
3. Deputy Director of Agriculture Department, Sirsa (Haryana).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. RAGHBIR SINGH………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……..…… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. K.J. Singla, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satvir Singh, Assistant Statistical Officer for opposite party no.3
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.
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that agriculture land of complainant is situated in village Kheowali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa and he is owner of 96 kanals land comprised in Khewat No.202 Khatuni No.290. That complainant maintains account with op no.2 bank vide account No.30792650464. It is further averred that complainant had sown the kharif crop of year 2018 in the above mentioned land. The op no.1 insured the crop of complainant against the premium of Rs.7070.40 and the cotton crop of complainant was completely destroyed. That at the time of insurance, op no.1 assured him that if his crop is destroyed, they will make payment of Rs.17,360/- per acre to him. It is further averred that complainant visited the office of ops for his insurance claim for damage of his crop, but ops refused to make payment of Rs.2,08,320/- to the complainant. It is further averred that in case of loanee farmers as per Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY), it is the duty of bank to get the crop insured from insurance company till 31st July and to provide all relevant documents to the insurance company and if the insurance premium is refunded to the bank account of complainant due to any fault of bank, then bank is liable to pay compensation. That both the ops have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and thereby have put him to severe crop losses and harassment. It is further averred that complainant approached and requested the ops many times to admit his claim but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that it is clarified that except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalized by government agencies on the basis of yield of crop and thereafter, claims were to be paid to bank of farmers. The insurance company is playing a role of implementing agency in the scheme in accordance with guidelines prescribed by Government. Further more, in localized claims, three perils are covered under the scheme i.e. Hailstorm, Landslide and Inundation affecting isolated farms in the notified area. For localized claims, there was a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. After intimation of claim, necessary survey of affected area had to be conducted by surveyor for decision of claim of farmers. It is further submitted that it is not an individual insurance policy like other insurance policies rather it is a group insurance scheme in accordance with agreed terms and conditions of scheme which are binding on all of concerned related to the scheme. The complainant should have approached to DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and the decision of said department would be binding on all state Government/ Insurance Company/ Bank and farmers. But instead of filing complaint or grievance before DAC & FW department, the complainant has approached this Forum by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme and thus, present complaint cannot be adjudicated before this Forum. It is further submitted that complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim. Merely allegation of claim intimation is not enough to establish that loss had actually occurred. Further, in absence of immediate intimation of claim, survey of damage field could not be conducted and therefore, it is almost impossible to determine quantification of loss. As per guidelines of scheme, immediate intimation was to be given within 48 hours but complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss of crop which reveals violation of terms and conditions of scheme. Other preliminary objections regarding 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, non impleading of necessary parties and involvement of complicated facts and law are also involved also taken. On merits, it is submitted that op no.1 used to make insurance of crop on the information supplied by the bank i.e. op no.2 and there is no direct contract in between the complainant and op no.1 as the present crop insurance is done under the group insurance scheme as per terms and conditions of PMFBY as per information supplied by the bank to the insurance company. On portal, the land of complainant in which the crop had been sown was shown as village “Odhan” instead of village “Kheowali” till the closure of the Portal and as per record, there is no loss suffered in the area of Odhan and due to this reason, no compensation is payable to the complainant. It is further submitted that no alleged loss is suffered by complainant. It is further submitted that every farmer who wants to get the benefit of KCC should have compulsorily insured the crop under the scheme of PMFBY. It is not an individual insurance policy like other insurance policies rather it is a group insurance scheme in accordance with agreed terms and conditions of scheme PMFBY which are binding on all concerned related to the scheme and all the necessary information and required documents may be collected by any Govt. agency/ Bank Insurance Portal etc. and supplied to the concerned insurance company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Opposite party no.2 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding non serving of prior notice, estoppal, maintainability, cause of action, concealment of material facts, jurisdiction, no consumer dispute, complaint is hopelessly time barred, bad for non joinder of necessary parties and that answering op has not charged any penny from the complainant for himself on account of any insurance for the crop of complainant, hence the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation from answering op. On merits, it is submitted that on the request of complainant, the answering op got the crops of kharif, 2018 of complainant insured with op no.1 and paid a sum of Rs.7070.40 on account of insurance premium to op no.1 after debiting the same to the loan account of complainant. It is further submitted that it is made clear that it is the liability of op no.1 to indemnify the loss of the complainant, if any because the crops of the complainant has been insured with op no.1 and op no.1 has charged insurance premium on account of insurance of the crops of complainant. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint against no.2 made.
5. Opposite party no.3 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections as taken by op no.1. It is submitted that report of survey of loss of crop is to be prepared by the answering op and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of answering op in this regard. The yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only after completion of 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 and same has already been sent to the ops as well as higher authorities. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 prayed for.
6. The parties then led their respective evidence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. The complainant has also placed on record his particulars maintained with op no.2 as Ex.C1, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C2, copy of pass book Ex.C3. OP no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director as Ex.R1, copy of Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department notification Ex.R2, copy of village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during Kharif 2018 Ex.R3. OP no.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhvinder Singh Manager as Ex.RW1/A, copy of application form for agricultural loan Ex.R4, copy of statement of account Ex.R5, copy of PMFBY scheme Ex.R6 and copies of emails Ex.R7 to Ex.R9. OP no.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. S.K. Malhotra, Divisional Manager as Ex.R10, copy of bank detail of farmers Ex.R11 and copy of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R12.
9. It is proved fact on record that complainant is having his agriculture land in village Kheowali, Tehsil Kalanwali District Sirsa and is holding KCC account with op no.2. It is further proved on record that op no.2 had deducted a sum of Rs.7070.40 on account of premium on 24.7.2018 from KCC account of complainant for insurance of crop of kharif, 2018 of complainant and got the crop of complainant insured from op no.1 and particulars were uploaded on the portal by op no.2. The complainant has alleged that his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 was completely damaged but he did not receive any compensation from insurance company despite his requests. In so far as loss of cotton crop of complainant is concerned, the opposite party no.3 which is Agriculture Department and conducts survey of the damaged crop of the villages of the District has placed on file copy of village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during Kharif, 2018 of Odhan Block as Ex.R3 in which there is also mention of village Kheyowali and the complainant also belongs to village Kheowali. So, it is proved on record that there was damage/loss to the cotton crop of the complainant of the Kharif, 2018 and his other co-villagers received compensation amount but complainant did not receive any compensation.
10. The plea of the opposite party no.1 Oriental Insurance Company to whom the amount of premium was credited by op no.2 bank for insurance of kharif crop of complainant of year 2018, is that op no.1 used to do insurance of crop on the information supplied by the bank i.e. op no.2 and there is no direct contract in between the complainant and op no.1. Op no.1 has further pleaded that on portal the land of complainant in which the crop had been sown as shown as “Odhan” instead of village ‘Kheowali” till the closure of the Portal and as per record, there is no loss suffered in the area of Odhan and due to this reason, no compensation is payable to the complainant. In so far as deficiency of service/ negligence of op no.2 regarding uploading of wrong name of the village of the complainant on the portal is concerned, Sh. Sukhvinder Singh Divisional Manager of op no.2 in his affidavit Ex.RW1/A has categorically admitted that bank informed to op no.1 many times through emails regarding corrections of name of village of the complainant, but no steps has been taken by op no.1. The op no.2 has also placed on record emails in this regard. So this is admission of op no.2 bank that they wrongly entered the name of the village of the complainant on portal as village Odhan instead of village Kheowali. The emails produced on file by op no.2 as Ex.R7 to Ex.R9 are of the months of February, 2019 and June, 2019 whereas cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 was to be matured in the month of October/ November, 2018 so these emails were sent after lapse of long time and by that time the loss to the crop of complainant was already caused. So op no.2 bank is deficient in service in this regard. Learned counsel for op no.1 has placed on file copy of the minutes of 4th Meeting of State Level Grievance Committee held on 14.1.2021, in which it has been resolved/ decided that in case of Village Name Mismatch, the concerned bank branch is liable to pay the claim of affected farmers. This observation has been given by the Committee on the basis of clause no.XXIV of PMFBY for the year Kharif 2016 to Kharif 2018 of Operational Guidelines and clause no.17.2 for the year Rabi 2018-19, Kharif-2019 and Rabi 2019-20 of Revised Operational Guidelines of PMFBY. The clause 17.2 of the Operational Guidelines of PMFBY is reproduced 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.
Further relevant portion of clause No.24 of the revised operational guidelines of PMFBY regarding Important Conditions/ Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks is as under:-
24.1 “Insurance Companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intermediary or directly. In case of any loss in transit due to negligence by these agencies or non remittance of premium by these agencies, the concerned bank/ intermediaries shall be liable for payment of claims.”
24.2 “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.”
11. Learned counsel for op no.2 has contended that as per sub clause (xxii) of Clause 19 of the Haryana Government Notification dated 30.3.2018, the insurance company was to verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address and bank account number (KYC) but we do not find force in this contention of learned counsel for op no.2 because as per above said revised operational guidelines of PMFBY, concerned bank shall be liable for misreporting. Since, op no.2 bank uploaded the wrong name of the village of complainant as Odhan instead of village Kheowali, therefore, the crop of the complainant in his land situated in village Kheowali could not be insured by the insurance company op no.1. So there is misreporting by opposite party no.2 regarding village of the complainant and as per above said clauses of the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the opposite party no.2 bank is responsible for said mistake and is liable to pay claim amount to the complainant. However, insurance company op no.1 and op no.3 cannot be held liable for mistake done by op bank and therefore, complaint against ops no.1 and 3 stands dismissed.
12. In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is allowed against opposite party no.2. We direct the opposite party no.2 to settle and pay the claim amount for the damage of cotton crop of complainant of kharif, 2018 at par with other farmers of the village Kheowali/ Odhan Block who have already received the compensation amount and op no.2 will also verify about the sown area of cotton crop at the relevant period from the total agriculture land of the complainant while settling the claim of complainant. We further direct the opposite party no.2 to pay the compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. The op 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 op no.2 shall be liable to pay interest @7% per annum on the payable claim amount from the date of order till actual realization. However, complaint qua ops 1 and 3 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:26.02.2021. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
