Haryana

Karnal

CC/648/2019

Jagdish - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Subhash Chander

29 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 648 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.24.09.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:29.03.2023

 

Jagdish aged about 64 years son of Shri Karta Ram, resident of village Sikri Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal. Aadhar no.8154 4685 5654.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Oriental Bank of Commerce, now merged in Punjab National Bank, Nilokheri, tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     SBI General insurance Company Ltd. 1^st floor, B.D. International  SCO no.388-389,  Karan Commercial Complex (Old Mugal Canal) near Guru Harikishan Public School, Karnal.

 

2.     Deputy Director Agriculture Department, Karnal. 

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Mohinder Dutt, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Brijesh Sharma, counsel for OP no.1.

                    Shri Naveen Kheterpal, counsel for the OP no.2.

                    Shri Surender Kumar, Project Officer on behalf

                    of OP no.3.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

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 by profession and having 2.5 acres of land in village Sikri, Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal. Complainant is having an OGC bank account no.15025115008363 with the OP no.1. Complainant has obtained the insurance policy under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from OP no.2 through OP no.1. On 30.07.2018, the premium amount of Rs.1328/- of Khariff 2018, was also deducted from the account of complainant. The paddy crop of the complainant has been damaged due to heavy rain and accumulation of water in the fields of complainant. Complainant reported the matter to Block Agriculture Officer, who on 28.09.2018, visited the site and inspected the fields of the complainant and found that there is loss to the tune of Rs.40% whereas the fact is that the paddy crop of complainant almost totally damaged. Thereafter, complainant submitted the application for the insurance claim with the OPs, but they denied the claim of the complainant by stating that the OP no.1 has not uploaded the name of the complainant on their portal. The mistake if any, is on the part of the OP no.1 and as such the complainant cannot be penalized for the same. Complainant wrote several letters, reminders to the OPs for making payment of the amount of compensation of his 2.5 acres of land which comes to Rs.1,00,000/-but nothing has been done by the OPs. Non-uploading the name of complainant on the portal of the OPs and non-releasing of the claim in respect of the paddy crop, complainant suffered mental pain, agony as well as financial loss. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay the compensation of damages crop of the land of the complainant with interest from the date of damage till its realization, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, torture, harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that OP, who has performed its part of contract incumbent upon them by transferring the premium amount to OP no.2 well within the stipulated time. It was thereafter obligatory on the part of the OP no.2 gets the crop insured after the receipt of the premium amount but OP no.2 negligently did not do the desired insurance done as warranted from the OP no.2. It is further pleaded that the amount of compensation as alleged for damaged crop of complainant is to be given by the OP no.2. The insurance company has not returned the premium amount of policy to the bank, if any, discrepancies were thereon, so the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, if any, to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant never shared policy and application number with insurance company. OPs also checked the complainant details through the account no.15025115008363 which has mentioned in complaint, but no such information regarding the particulars of the complainant’s claim available with the OP. It is further pleaded that crop insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna which operates area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as in insurance unit. For all major crops, insurance unit is Gram Panchayat and for minor crops, insurance unit is Taluk. It is further pleaded that Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare is fixed for every insurance unit. Actual yield (AY) kilogram/hectare of an insurance unit is calculated by the government taking samples from respective insurance unit at the time of harvesting of the crop through crop cutting experiments (CCEs) which are conducted by State Government. All the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claims is furnished by the government and accordingly the insurance company only calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Provision of operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna vide clause XI: Assessment of loss/shortfall in yield, sub clause 10: Assessment of Claims (Wide Spread Calamities)

“If ‘Actual Yield’ (AY) per hectare of insured crop for the insurance unit (calculated on basis of requisite number of CCEs) in insured season, falls short of specified “Threshold Yield” (TY), all insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in yield of similar magnitude. PMFBY seeks to provide coverage against such contingency.

‘Claim’ shall be calculated as per the following formula:

(Threshold Yield- Actual Yield)

Threshold yield                  X Sum insured.

 

It is further pleaded that in the present case, in the absence of application number, OP is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 in its reply stated that complainant immediately informed Agriculture Department regarding the said damages of crop and accordingly the official of the agriculture of the insurance company got surveyed the damages crop. OP no.1 is a clear cut deficiency in service, the details of the farmer not uploaded on GOI portal. As per the operational guidelines of PMFBY clause no.XVII (2) at that time. If substantial misreporting by Bank/ Branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concern bank only shall be liable for such misreporting.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, copy of statement of account Ex.C2, copy of application dated 25.09.2018 to bank Ex.C3, copy of payment confirmation letter Ex.C4, copy of survey report Ex.C5, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2018-2019 Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 03.08.2022 by suffering separate statement. 

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Davinder Mehla, Branch Manager Ex.OP1/Aand closed the evidence on 17.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Arvind Singh Naruka Ex.RW1/A, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 17.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Project Officer Ex.OP3/A, copy of survey report Ex.OP1, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 07.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

10.           We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

11.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complainant, has vehemently argued that complainant has obtained the insurance policy under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from OP no.2 through OP no.1. The premium of the insurance of Khariff 2018, was also deducted from the account of complainant and same was remitted in the account of insurance company. In the season of Kharif, 2018 the paddy crop of the complainant has been damaged due to heavy rain and complainant moved an application to Agriculture Department for assessing the loss and accordingly the land of complainant was got inspected by the official of the Agriculture Department on 28.09.2018. As per survey report, the loss of the paddy crop of complainant was assessed to the extent of 40% in 2.5 acres of land. Complainant submitted the application for the insurance claim with the OPs, but they denied the claim of the complainant on the ground the name of the complainant was not uploaded on the Government portal and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

12.           Per-contra, learned counsel of OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that after deduction of premium amount, under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 had remitted premium in the account of insurance company, so there is no fault on the part of the bank/OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP no.1.

13.           Learned counsel for OP no.2 argued that that all the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claim is furnished by the government and accordingly the insurance company only calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. He further argued that complainant never shared the policy and application number and in the absence of application number, OP is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

14.           OP no.3 submitted that the crop of the complainant was damaged due to water logging. OP no.3 inspected the fields of complainant on 28.09.2018 and prepared the report while assessed the damaged to the extent of 40% in 2.5 acres of land of the complainant.

15.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

16.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land in village Sikri and had obtained crop loan from OP no.1 (bank) and OP no.1 had deducted premium amount for insurance of crop on behalf of OP no.1 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. It is also an admitted fact that the insurance premium was duly remitted in the account of OP no.2 by the OP No.1.

17.           Due to damage of crop, complainant moved an application to Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal for inspection of the damaged crop. The team of Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, has inspected the crop of complainant and submitted his report Ex.C5/OP1, in which it clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant in village Sikri and observed that damaged crop to the extent of 40% in 2.5 acres of land.  Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Sikri and same was damaged to the extent of 40% in 2.5 acres of land but the complainant name was not found in the insurance portal. The insurance company denied topay any compensation/claim to complainant while saying that complainant never shared the policy number and application number with the OP no.2. OP no.3 has also placed on record copy of inspection report Ex.C5/OP1, conducted by agricultural department and representative of insurance company which reveals that on 28.09.2018 agriculture department and representative of insurance company inspected the field of complainant and found that his paddy crop in 2.5 acres of land was damaged due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report Ex.C5/OP1, that paddy crop of complainant in 2.5 acres of land in village Sikri was damaged and he has suffered loss, on account of damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The OP no.2 has not paid claim amount to the complainant on the ground that the complainant never shared the policy and application number and in the absence of application number, OP no.2 is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant.

18.           Moreover, OP no.1 bank has also relied upon the minutes of the meeting to discuss the pending dispute of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) held on 02.07.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri Ajit Bala Ji Joshi, IAS Director General Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana and Minutes of the meeting to discuss the pending dispute of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) held on 11.09.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri D.K. Jain, Zonal Manager (PNB) and Convener SLBC Haryana, in the abovesaid meetings, it was resolved that cases where farmers record mismatch and premium paid by Banks to insurance company on time, whereas insurance company has not returned premium to bank in time, insurance company will pay the claim to farmers as per farmer record.

19.           In rebuttal, learned counsel for OP no.2 has relied upon   the minutes of 4^th 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 details 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.”

20.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has submitted that abovesaid Minutes of the meeting has already been challenged by the concerned Banks before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the verdict of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court is still pending. Thus the said minutes of meetings are not applicable upon the OPs.

21.            In the present case, the insurance company OP no.2 which has retained the premium amount of complainant for insuring paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 and has not returned the premium amount to bank in time is liable to pay insurance claim for the damage of crop to the complainant. Whereas complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of OP no.2 inspected the field of complainant and confirmed about the loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. Therefore, OP no.2 cannot go back and cannot avoid its liability when its representative has already found loss by surveying the crop of complainant. So, the insurance company i.e. OP no.2 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.

 22.          Learned counsel for OP no.2 has contended that complainant never shared policy and application number and in the absence of application number, insurance company is unable to trace any information regarding the claim of complainant. As per clause 24.2 of guidelines of PMFBY regarding collection of proposal and premium from farmers according to which in case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/ branch in case of compulsory farmer’s coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting. But as already discussed, there is nothing on file to prove the said plea of OP no.2 as OP no.2 has not led any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that there is any misreporting on behalf of bank for which OP no.1 bank can be held liable. Furthermore, there is nothing on file to prove that insurance company has verified the data of the complainant as provided by the bank or found any misreporting on the part of OP no.1 bank. Moreover, insurance company cannot take the shelter that complainant never shared the policy number and application number specifically when the Loss Assessor of the OP was very much present at the time of survey of the damaged crop. So, only insurance company i.e. OP no.2 liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, no liability of OPs no.1 & 3 is made out.

23.           Now, we observe the entitlement of the complainant regarding claim amount for the damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant had sown paddy crop in 2.5 acres of land and has suffered loss to the extent to the extent of 40% in the said land. The said report has not been disputed by the insurance company. As per document issued by Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Haryana,  the gross yield of paddy/kharif in the year 2018, in District Karnal is to the tune of Rs.45,000/- per acre. Complainant suffered loss in to the extent 40% in 2.5 acres of land. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.45,000/-(18,000x2.5=45000/-). Hence, the complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. However, no liability of OPs no.1 and 3 is made out.

24.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 i.e. insurance company to pay the amount of Rs.45,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of present complaint till its actual realization. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complaint against OPs no.1 and 3 stands dismissed. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Dated:29.03.2023                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member