Haryana

Kaithal

101/21

Bal Kishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.K.S Jangra

01 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No.           101 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:    06.04.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:       01.03.2024.

 

Bal Kishan s/o Shri Ram Dass, r/o H.No.488/13, Gali No.Zero, Amargarh Gamri, Kaithal & Biswedar of village Kheri Raowali, District Kaithal.

 

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                 Versus

 

1. Oriental Bank of Commerce now Punjab National Bank, Pehowa Chowk, Ambala Road, Kaithal.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company, 3^rd Floor, Agro Mall, Sector-20, Panchkula-134117, through its Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Mini Secretariat, Kaithal.

...Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:    SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri K.S. Jangra, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Amit Kaushik, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2.

                   Shri Sunil Kumar, SA, Rep. for Opposite Party No.3.

                  

ORDER     -     NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that he is an agriculturist by profession having 8 acres of land situated in village Kheri Raowali. That he has an account No.00455111013638 with OP No.1 for the last more than 10 years, who got insured his rabi 2019-20 crop under the Government scheme Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) with OP No.2 by deducting Rs.2505.95 on 13.12.2019 from his said account. That during the rabi 2019-20 season, he sown wheat crop in his said land, but due to untimely heavy rainfall, hailstorm and logging of heavy rainy water in his fields in the month of Feb-March 2020, the wheat crop was badly damaged/ruined. That he reported the matter to OPs and officials of OP No.3 surveyed his fields and assessed 35% damage to his wheat crop. That he requested the OPs various times to pay the claim amount, but they did not do, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.    

3.             Upon notice, all OPs appeared before this Commission and filed their respective written statements.

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement has specifically stated that to implement the scheme of PMFBY, premium amount of Rs.2505.95 was debited from the KCC account of complainant on 13.12.2019 for Rabi fasal and later on consolidated premium including the premium of complainant was remitted the account of OP No.2 along with premium amount of other farmers.

5.                OP No.2, in its written statement stated that Bal Kishan, farmer ID No.92943311 Application ID No.040206191010250698401 uploaded by OBC, Kaithal for coverage of wheat crop in land survey No.91 and land sub-division No.91 of village Kheri Gulamali (83) Block Siwan, District Kaithal (Rabi 2019-20). Further, wrt Area Approach claims based on CCEs, as there was no shortfall in the actual crop yield for wheat crop of the insured village Kheri Gulamali (83) during the Rabi 2019-20 season. Therefore, no Area Approach claims became payable to the complainant farmer under PMFBY scheme. It is pertinent to mention here that the intimation of crop loss due to hailstorm, submitted by the complainant farmer on 08.03.2020 was rejected because intimated crop in village Kheri Raowali (64) was not insured on the NCI-Portal, whereas, crop in village Kheri Gulamali (83) is uploaded by the OP bank on the NCI-Portal. As per NCI-Portal coverage, the crop in village Kheri Raowali (64) was never insured with OP No.2 during above mentioned season, so the complainant farmer is not entitled to any claim for crop in village Kheri Raowali (64) under PMFBY scheme, during Rabi 2019-20 season.

6.                OP No.3, in its written statement stated that in khariff season 2018-19 and damaging the same due to rain. The OP never assured to reimburse for the loss to the complainant.

7.                To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C10.

8.                OP No.1 in its evidence, tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-RJ to Annexure-RM. OP No.2, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure R-A to R-I. OP No.3, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Annexure R-1 and R-3.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

10.              Learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession having 8 acres of land situated in village Kheri Raowali and has an account with OP No.1, who got insured his Rabi 2019-20 crop, under the Government scheme Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) with OP No.2, by deducting Rs.2505.95 on 13.12.2019 from his said account. He further argued that during the Rabi 2019-20 season, the complainant sown wheat crop in his said land, but due to untimely heavy rainfall, hailstorm and logging of heavy rainy water in his fields, in the month of Feb-March 2020, the wheat crop was badly damaged/ruined. He further argued that the complainant reported the matter to OPs and officials of OP No.3 surveyed his fields and assessed 35% damage to his wheat crop, but the OPs failed to pay the claim amount, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs.    

11.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that to implement the scheme of PMFBY, premium amount of Rs.2505.95 was debited from the KCC account of complainant on 13.12.2019 for Rabi fasal and later on consolidated premium including the premium of complainant was remitted the account of OP No.2 along with premium amount of other farmers.

12.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that Bal Kishan, farmer ID No.92943311 Application ID No.040206191010250698401 uploaded by OBC, Kaithal for coverage of wheat crop in land survey No.91 and land sub-division No.91 of village Kheri Gulamali (83) Block Siwan, District Kaithal (Rabi 2019-20). He further argued that further, with respect to Area Approach claims based on CCEs, as there was no shortfall in the actual crop yield for wheat crop of the insured village Kheri Gulamali (83) during the Rabi 2019-20 season. He further argued that as per NCI-Portal coverage, the crop in village Kheri Raowali (64) was never insured with OP No.2 during above mentioned season, so the complainant farmer is not entitled to any claim for crop in village Kheri Raowali (64) under PMFBY scheme, during Rabi 2019-20 season.

13.              Undeniably, the complainant is an agriculturist of village Kheri Raowali and holding a bank account with OP No.1 bank bearing Account No.00455111013638, from which, premium amount of Rs.2505.95 was deducted on 13.12.2019, under PMFBY scheme by OP No.1 Annexure C-1.

14.              The grievance of the complainant is that due to untimely heavy rainfall, hailstorm and logging of heavy rainy water, in his fields, in the month of Feb-March 2020, his wheat crop was badly damaged/ruined, but OPs failed to release the claim amount.

15.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for OP No.1 has submitted that premium amount of Rs.2505.95 was debited from the account of complainant on 13.12.2019 for Rabi 2019-20, as per PMFBY guidelines, vide Customer Account Ledger Print Annexure-RJ and accordingly, the same has been remitted to Agriculture Insurance Company i.e. OP No.2, which was not denied by OP No.2. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 insurance company has specifically submitted that the crop in village Kheri Raowali was never insured with OP No.2, during above mentioned season, so the complainant farmer is not entitled to any claim for crop in village Kheri Raowali (64) under PMFBY scheme, during Rabi 2019-20 season. He further argued that as OP No.1 bank has uploaded the wrong village name of the complainant on the Portal as Kheri Gulamali instead of Kheri Raowali, thus, OP No.1 bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant for the loss suffered to his wheat crop season 2019-20 under PMFBY. It is admitted fact that land of complainant is situated in village Kheri Raowali, whereas, in status of application Annexure C-2, produced by the complainant, in column Crop Details, the village name of Bal Kishan (complainant) is mentioned Kheri Gulamali instead of Kheri Raowali. Furthermore, in Application Status Annexure RF (1^st Page), Village Name of complainant is mentioned Kheri Gulamali instead of Kheri Raowali. Furthermore, in Insured Farmer Details Annexure-RF (2^nd page), in column “Gram Panchayat of Insured Crop”, there is mentioned village name as Kehri Gulamali instead of Kheri Raowali. There is no dispute that it was the primarily duty of only OP No.1 bank to upload the data of farmer concerned, on the Government Portal under PMFBY scheme, and it is admitted fact that the complainant suffered loss to his crop situated in village Kheri Raowali, but OP No.1 bank has wrongly uploaded name of his village as Kheri Gulamali instead of Kheri Raowali, on the Government Portal, about PMFBY scheme, which shifts the liability to pay the compensation amount to the complainant, from one party to another party. The above act and conduct of OP No.1 bank amounts to grave deficiency in service, on its part.

16.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 further contended that the OP No.1 bank is liable to pay the amount of claim, if any, to the complainant, for his own above mistake/wrong declaration. To support his above contentions, he produced document Annexure-RB “Operational Guidelines” on the case file and drawn attention towards its Para No.17.2, which reads as under:-

17.2            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 along with their bank account details etc. (bank/their branches) as per the application form provided  on the National Crop Insurance Portal, Banks are required to upload the insured farmer’s data mandatorily on the National Crop Insurance Portal. No other platform shall be used for uploading/submission of farmer’s 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”.

17.              So as per above Operational Guidelines, we found that OP No.1 bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant, for his own above mistake/wrong declaration. View of this Commission is fully supported by the case law cited (supra) by counsel for the OP No.2, in the case of State Bank of India Versus Bijender Singh & 2 Ors (NC), wherein, it is held that “6. It is matter of record that land of the Complainants falls in the village Siwana Mal in the District of Jind. Undeniably, the petitioner Bank by mistake remitted the premium for the area of Gangana in the District of Sonepat, on account of which the Insurance Company could not proceed further in entertaining the claim……. 8. In view of the aforesaid Guidelines governing the Insurance Scheme in question, the liability to satisfy the claim would undeniably fall upon the Petitioner-Bank, since it had wrongly remitted the premium for an entirely different area, which was far-away and totally different from the land of the complainants, where the damage had taken place. Consequently, there was no error on the part of both the Ld. For a below in thus holding the Petitioner-Bank liable to satisfy the claim of the Complainants”.

18.              During the course of arguments, learned counsel for OP No.1 bank has contended that if OP No.1 bank has uploaded wrong data/village name of complainant on the Government Portal, even then, it was required for OP No.2 insurance company to verify the data of farmers concerned, within two months of cutoff date and if any discrepancy was found therein, then it was required for OP No.2 insurance company to intimate State Government/OP No.1 bank, in this regard, within cutoff date of two months, but nothing such as has been done by OP No.2 insurance company, hence, OP No.2 insurance company, for its own deficiency, is liable to pay the compensation amount, if any, to the complainant under PMFBY scheme. In order to support his above contentions, learned counsel for OP No.1 bank has produced “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018” as Annexure-RL, on the case file and drawn attention of this Commission towards its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii, which reads as under:-

“xxii) 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”.  

 

19.              So, from perusal of above Notification, it is crystal clear that it was required for OP No.2 insurance company to verify the data/information, provided/uploaded by OP No.1 bank on Government Portal regarding the farmers concerned, within the period of cutoff date of two months, from its uploading/providing, and if any discrepancy/mistake is found by OP No.2 in it, then intimate to Sate Government/OP No.1 bank, in this regard, within cutoff date of two months, but in the case in hand, from perusal of record, we found that OP No.2 had neither raised any objection nor intimated to OP No.1 bank regarding any discrepancy in the data of complainant, within the period of cutoff date of two months, and now when crops of complainant has been damaged/destroyed and the complainant demanded the claim amount, as per PMFBY scheme, from OP No.2, then OP No.2 refused to pay the same, on flimsy ground that OP No.1 bank has uploaded wrong village name of complainant on the Government Portal. Hence, this objection raised by the Insurance Company at a later stage will not be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim, if any, to the complainant under PMFBY. The act of OP No.2 insurance company of not paying the claim amount to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on its part. 

20.              So, keeping in view the above detailed facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that OP No.1 bank had uploaded wrong village name of complainant on the Government Portal under PMFBY scheme, and then, on coming to know this fact, OP No.2 insurance company had neither raised nor intimated this objection to OP No.1 bank, within the period of cutoff date of two months, which amounts to deficiency in service, on the part of both OPs No.1 & 2, due to which, the complainant deprived from receiving the claim amount, for the loss suffered to his crop, either from OP No.1 or from OP No.2, which certainly caused unprecedented physical harassment and mental agony to the complainant and forced him to indulge in the present litigations unnecessarily. Hence, both OPs No.1 & 2, for their above act, severally and jointly, are liable to pay the claim amount, to the complainant, for the loss suffered by him, due to destroy of his standing crops. However, it is pertinent to mention here that no doubt, as per above mentioned case law titled State Bank of India Vs. Bijender Singh & 2 Ors (cited supra), produced by OP No.2 insurance company, if OP bank had committed any mistake in uploading the whereabouts of the complainant on the Govt. Portal, then OP bank shall be liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant for his mistake, but it is pertinent to mention here that this case is silent whether the insurance company concerned had refund back the said premium amount to the insurance company/complainant, after knowing the mistake/wrong done of OP bank or not. Hence, keeping in view the above facts of the present case, this case law (mentioned above) does not fully applicable to the present case. 

21.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? In the complaint, complainant alleged that his wheat crop of 8 acres of land has been damaged and this fact is also admitted from Loss Assessment Report Annexure C-7, wherein, in column “Insured Land” there is mentioned 8 acres. As per document Annexure-R1, the OP No.3 Agriculture Department has assessed the claim of complainant, based on Average Yield, to the tune of Rs.3851.69 per acre, therefore, for 8 acres of land, complainant is entitled to the tune of Rs.30813.52 (Rs.3851.69 x 8 acres), which shall be paid, by OPs No.1 and 2, jointly and severally, to the complainant along with compensation amount + litigation expenses.

22.              Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OPs No.1 & 2 and dismiss the same against OP No.3. We direct OPs No.1 and 2, jointly and severally, to pay Rs.30813.52 along with compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, , to the complainant, within 45 days, from today, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization.

23.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:01.03.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.