Haryana

Karnal

CC/383/2019

Mahabir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Jasbir Singh

27 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 383 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.01.07.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:27.01.2023

 

Mahabir son of Shri Sobha Ram son of Shri Dotiya, residenet of village Hathlana, Post Office Manjura, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch at Jundla, District Karnal through its Branch Manager..

 

2.   SBI General Insurance Company, SCO no.388-389, Ist floor, B.D. International, Karan Commercial Complex, Old  Mugal Canal, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

3.     Deputy Director of Agriculture, Department, near Mahila Thana, Old G.T. Road, 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.       

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Jasbir Singh, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Somesh Garg, counsel for OP no.1.

Shri Naveen Kheterpal, counsel for 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 having 1.5 acre of agriculture land in village Hathlana. Complainant has obtained a crop agriculture loan from the OP no.1. The complainant has also taken insurance policy under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from OP no.2 through the OP no.1. OP no.1 has deducted the premium from the account of complainant for the insurance of crop every season. OP no.1 has deduced the premium for the year kharif, 2018, which has been shown in the statement of account. In the season of kharif, 2018 the crop of complainant got destroyed due to heavy rain. The complainant within 48 hours informed the agricultural department regarding the said damages of crop and accordingly the officials of the agriculture department as well as the officials of insurance company got surveyed the damaged crop. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP no.2 several times and requested for disbursement of the insurance claim but they flatly refused to disburse the same by alleging that the land of the complainant is not insured with them, as per record. In this way there was 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 and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and  as litigation costs.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that as per directions of central government under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna on the request of a farmer, erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce (now Punjab National Bank) through its concerned branch had to enter the details/information of that farmer in the computer portal provided by the central government and to deposit the amount of premium to the concerned insurance company after collecting the same from that farmer within a stipulated time. In the present case also, in the year 2018 on the request of complainant, OP no.1 deducted the insurance premium from the complainant’s account and deposited the same well within time with concerned insurance company i.e. OP no.2 alongwith other farmers. As per guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, the particulars of the farmer were to be entered by the bank in the online government portal, but were to be verified by insurance company. In this case also answering OP entered the correct particulars of the farmer in the said portal, but inadvertently due to some technical fault/error in the portal at that time, the village name of the farmer was entered as Bansa instead of Hathlana. After receipt of premium by OP no.2, the company never verified the details /information of the insured farmer entered in the concerned portal nor asked the OP to rectify the said mistake, which was the duty of OP no.2 as per said scheme. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice 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 qua OP no.1.

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 as per the PMFBY: Actual Yield (AY) kilogram/hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy (irrigated) in village:- Hathlana Hence the complainant is not liable for any claim as per PMFBY guidelines. 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. It is further pleaded that 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, as the Actual Yield kilogram/Hectare was more than Threshold Yield Kilogram/Hectare for crop:- paddy in village-Hathlana, which is respectively crop insured by and insurance unit of complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit under the policy.

Crop         District    Village         Farmer        Actual        Threshold    Claim

                                                  Type             Yield         Yield 

                                                            (AY)         (TY)

Paddy                Karnal      Hathlana          -              4058.25    3332.7         0

(Dhan)                                       

 

 

Based upon the calculation of the claim Rs.0, Hence the complainant are not liable for any compensation. It is further pleaded that complainant is not entitled for any compensation for damages to the crop as claimed amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 in its reply stated that complainant is owner of 1.19 hectare acres of land in village Hathlana and he has obtained cash credit limit (KCC) from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jundla. OP no.1 has insured the crop for the year 2018 under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from OP no.2 and has debited the premium from the account of the complainant and said amount was remitted to OP no.2. Due to heavy rain fall in the rainy season 2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was totally damaged. Complainant informed the Agriculture Department regarding the said damages of crop within 48 hours and accordingly the officials of the agriculture and insurance company got surveyed the damaged crop. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 committed mistake in filling of the GOI portal as the OP no.1 uploaded the land of complainant in village Bansa instead of village Hathlana, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Due to this mistake, the insurance company has not paid the claim to the complainant. As per the notification no.2979-Agri-II(1)-2018/16760 dated 19.11.2018 clause 19 (XXV) the concern bank only shall be liable for such misreporting.

 5.            Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.C1, copy of claim status Ex.C2, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 30.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mohan Lal Verma, Branch Manager, Ex.OP1/A, copy of list of person/account holders for PMFBY Khariff, 2018 Ex.OP1, copy of statement of account of complainant Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 06.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Arvind Singh Naruka Authorized Signatory Ex.RW1/A, copy of insurance acknowledgement receipt Ex.R1, copy of tabulation sheet Ex.R2, copy of Blockwise actual yield and threshold yield Ex.R3, copy of screen shot of Government portal Ex.R4, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 29.07.2022 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.OP3/1, copy of company reply Ex.OP3/2 and closed the evidence on 19.09.2022 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 of complainant, while reiterating the contents of complainant, has vehemently argued that complainant had obtained cash credit limit for agriculture/loan from the OP no.1 under scheme of cash credit agriculture and for the purpose of loan and got insured his crop from OP no.2 through OP no.1. He further argued that the complainant had sown paddy crop in 2.5 acres of land in the month of June/July, 2018 but due to heavy rainfall, the crop was badly damaged and thereafter, complainant approached the OPs and requested several times to make the payment of compensation but they failed to pay the same 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 Actual Yield (AY) kilogram/hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy in village Hathlana, hence the complainant is not liable for any compensation. 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.  As per Ex.R4 i.e. screen short of portal, the name of village is mentioned as Bansa (57) by OP no.1 instead of village Hathlana and there is no loss in village Bansa, hence the claim of the complainant was rightly declined. There is no fault on the part of the insurance company and OP no.2 is not liable for the wrong act committed by OP no.1 i.e. bank 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 had inspected the fields of complainant on 05.10.2018 and prepared the report in which they shown that the crop of complainant damaged to the extent of 73.3% in two and half acres of land.

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 Hathlana and had obtained crop loan from OP no.1 (bank) and OP no.1 had deducted premium amounts for insurance of crop on behalf of OP no.2 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.OP3/1, in which it clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant in village Hathlana and observed that damaged crop in two and half acres of land to the extent of 73.3% in two and half acres of land. Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Hathlana and same was damaged to the extent of 73.3% in two and half acres of land but name of village has been wrongly mentioned by OP no.1 bank in the insurance portal as village Bansa instead of village Hathlana.

18.           Furthermore, so far as loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 is concerned, the complainant has specifically stated that in Kharif, 2018 season his crop were damaged due to water logging due to heavy rain and he moved an application to the agriculture department with regard to loss of crop. He has also stated that agriculture department and insurance company inspected/ surveyed his damaged crop but insurance company denied to pay any compensation/claim to him while saying that there is no loss in village Hathlana. OP no.3 has also placed on record copy of inspection report Ex.OP3/1, conducted by agricultural department and representative of insurance company, it reveals that on 05.10.2018 agriculture department and representative of insurance company had inspected the field of complainant and found that his paddy crop in area of two and half acres of land was damaged to the extent of 73.3% due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report Ex.OP3/1, that paddy crop of complainant in area of two and half acres of land in village Hathlana had 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 as the actual yield was more than threshold yield in village Hathlana, therefore, complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The OP no.3 in its written version specifically has mentioned that on the GOI portal, the crop village of the farmer is a mismatch of the village name. In the portal ID, the area of crop insured of complainant has been shown in village Bansa instead of village Hathlana and as such OP no.2 has taken stand that crop of complainant in village Hathlana is not insured with it. No doubt, the OP no.1 bank has wrongly uploaded the name of the village of complainant, but according to clause 19 (xxii) of Haryana Government Agriculture & Welfare Department Notification dated 30.3.2018, the insurance company is to 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. Hence, OP no.2 cannot take such plea that there is mismatch of the village name of the complainant as there is nothing on file to prove the fact that OP no.2 insurance company had verified the data of the complainant as provided by the OP no.1 independently and sought any correction and OP no.2 has retained the premium amount of complainant and has not refunded the same to the complainant due to mismatch of village name of complainant.

19.           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.

20.           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 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.”

21.           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.

22.            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. Furthermore, the crop of the complainant got surveyed individually not consolidated by the Agriculture Department, which has been proved from the survey report Ex.OP3/1. Complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of insurance company 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 to the crop of complainant.  So, the insurance company OP no.2 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, no liability of OPs no.1 and 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. As per survey report Ex.OP3/1 complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 73.3% in two and half acres of land. The said report has not been disputed by the insurance company. As per document issued by Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Haryana, as also produced in many another cases, the gross yield of paddy/kharif in the year 2018, in District Karnal is to the tune of Rs.45,000/- per acre. Complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 73.3% in two and half acres of land. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.82,462/-(32985x2.5=82462). 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.82,462/- 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:27.01.2023                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member