BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 348 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 01.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 11.10.2021.
- Sher Singh aged 28 years son of Joginder Singh,
- Devender aged 28 years son of Joginder Singh,
- Darshana Devi, aged 53 years W/o Joginder Singh, all residents of village Gigorani, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainants.
Versus.
- Oriental General Insurance Company Limited, Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Road New Delhi Pin 110002.
- HDFC Bank through its Manager near Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, Haryana.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. JASWANT SINGH…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Anil Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainants have 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 complainants are having 197-8 kanals of agricultural land alongwith share of Renu Devi, Suman daughters of Joginder Singh and Parmeshwari w/o Vijay Singh ( as detailed in para no.3 of complaint) situated in village Gigorani, District Sirsa and are having joint Kisan Credit Account with op no.2 bank bearing account number 50200027369419 ( as per amended complaint filed on 27.11.2019 as initially wrong account no. as 50200016361382 was mentioned). That at the time of opening the KCC account, the complainant no.2 submitted the power of attorney given by Renu Devi, Suman daughters of Joginder Singh and Parmeshwari devi wife of Vijay Singh in favour of complainant no.2 to op no.2 bank and the insurance premium for insurance of cotton crop of season 2018 of complainants was deducted from their KCC account. It is further averred that as per notification of Government of India, all the Kisan Credit Card account holders are required to get their crop insured through their respective banker where they are maintaining their KCC account and accordingly op no.2 deducted premium of Rs.14,270.40 on 2.7.2018 from the joint KCC account of complainants for insurance of their cotton of Kharif, 2018. That in this way, the complainants got insured their cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in their share of land with op no.1 through op no.2. It is further averred that premium was deducted by op no.2 from their account on the cutoff date of deposition of premium and when they enquired from op no.2 regarding insurance premium, they were told that their premium for insurance of crop of Kharif, 2018 has been deposited with op no.1. That cotton crop of complainants of Kharif, 2018 season was damaged and other farmers of village Gigorani, District Sirsa having land in the revenue estate of this village have received insurance claim against the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 season at the rate of Rs.17,350/- per acre but the complainants did not get any insurance claim. That complainant approached the ops and requested to pay the insurance claim for the damage of their cotton crop but every time the complainants were informed that the farmers eligible for the insurance claim have been paid the claim and they have to wait for some days as they are in process of calculating insurance claim. That after some days, the complainants again visited to ops and requested them to pay the insurance claim but of no use. That complainants are farmers by profession and are wholly dependent upon agricultural income, but due to deficiency in service on the part of ops, the complainants did not get insurance claim from ops and have suffered mental agony as well as economical loss. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written version 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 complainants 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 complainants have 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 complainants never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of crop and thus, connected story of claim of complainants 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 complainants have 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 involved are also taken. On merits, it is submitted that op no.1 used to do the insurance of crop on the information supplied by the Bank i.e. op no.2 and there is no direct contract between complainants and op no.1 as the present crop insurance is done under the group insurance scheme as per terms and conditions of the ‘Pardhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna”. It is further submitted that answering op had never received the premium for insurance of the crop in the land of complainants situated in village Gigorani and the same was not insured with answering op. The banker of complainant has uploaded the name of the village Shahpur Begu in place of Gigorani on the National Crop Insurance Portal wrongly and did not make any effort to rectify the mistake and to correct the name of village in the Portal before closure of the portal. As per operational guidelines, after the closure of the portal, no correction can be made. So, the answering op is not liable to pay any claim for loss of crop or any compensation to the complainants. It is further submitted that eligible farmers of village Gigorani, whose crops were damaged have been paid for the loss of crops. The crops in the land of complainants being situated in village Shahpur Begu, they are not entitled to any claim for loss of their crops. The answering op cannot be held responsible for the wrongs committed by op no.2, therefore, op no.2 bank is liable to pay the loss, if any to the complainants. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action and suppression of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that premium has been accepted by op no.1 for the insurance of Kharif crop of complainant. As per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. Agriculture and Farmer, Welfare Department Notification No. 941-Agri-II (I)-2018/4322 dated 30.3.2018, “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 Govt. 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”. In the present case, insurance company has accepted the premium without any objection and has never refunded the same. So, it is presumed that insurance company has insured the crops of complainants after accepting the premium. The matter of compensation is between complainants and op no.1 and complainants are consumer of op no.1. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Complainants have tendered in evidence affidavit of Sher Singh complainant as Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Devender complainant as Ex.CW2/A, copy of statement of account Ex.C1, copy of pass book of one Satpal Sahu son of Ram Murti, resident of village Gigorani, District Sirsa Ex.C2, copy of general power of attorney Ex.C3, copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C4, detail of insurance/ applicant ID given by Bank Ex.C5, copies of adhar cards Ex.C6 to Ex.C8, copy of order dated 19.12.2018 passed by this Forum (now Commission) in case titled as Kurda Ram Vs. Religance General Insurance etc. Ex.C9 and report of Assistant Statistical Officer, office of DDA, Sirsa Ex.C10.
5. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. S.K. Malhotra Ex.RW1/A, copy of relevant page showing details of insurance on portal Ex.R2, copy of terms and conditions regarding collection of proposal and premium from farmers Ex.R3, copy of minutes of 4th meeting of State Legal Grievance Committee held on 14.1.2021 Ex.R7.
6. Op no.2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer Ex.RW2/A, copy of statement of account Ex.RW2/B and copy of details of crop insurance kharif, 2018 Ex.RW2/C.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that as per Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY scheme), which was launched in the year 2016, the crops of every farmers who have obtained crop loan from any Financial Institutions i.e. Banks etc. and are growing notified crops were to be compulsorily insured with the insurance company by the Bank of the loanee farmers. The complainants are agriculturists and have also availed crop loan from the opposite party no.2 by mortgaging their agricultural land as detailed in para no.3 of the complaint. He has further contended that as per scheme of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna, the opposite party no.2 deducted premium amount of Rs.14,270.40 on 2.7.2018 for insuring the cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 of complainants with the opposite party no.1 insurance company. The cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 of complainants was damaged and other farmers of village Gigorani have already received claim against damage to their cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 but complainants have not received any insurance claim. The complainants have suffered financial loss due to the damage of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 and as such they are also entitled to the compensation for the same.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 while reiterating the contents of written version has contended that op no.1 has not received any premium amount from op no.2 bank for insurance of crop of complainants of Kharif, 2018 in the land situated in village Gigorani and as such op no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants. The op no.2 bank has wrongly uploaded the name of village complainants on insurance portal and as such op no.1 cannot be held liable for any mistake of op no.2 bank and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
10. Learned counsel for op no.2 has also contended as per written version filed on behalf of op no.2 and submitted that premium amount of Rs.14,270.40 was deducted for insurance of crop of complainants of Kharif, 2018 and was remitted to op no.1 insurance company. The op no.1 has accepted the premium amount without any objection and op no.1 is liable to pay claim amount to the complainants. The op no.2 bank has discharged its duty, therefore, op no.2 bank is not liable to pay any claim amount or compensation to the complainants and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 11. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.
12. The complainants in order to prove their ownership have placed on file copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C4 which shows their ownership over the agricultural land alongwith Smt. Parmeshwari wife of Vijay Singh, Renu Devi and Suman daughters of Joginder Singh. Smt. Renu Devi and Suman are sisters of complainants no.1 and 2 and daughters of complainant no.3 and Smt. Parmeshwari is grandmother of complainants no.1 and 2 and mother-in-law of complainant no.3. The complainants have also placed on file copy of general power of attorney of said Parmeshwari, Darshna Devi widow of Joginder Singh, Renu and Suman daughters of Joginder Singh son of Vijay Singh executed in favour of Devender complainant no.2 regarding their share over agricultural land as detailed in para no.3 of the complaint. The complainants have also placed on record copy of statement of account Ex.C1, from which it is proved on record that on 2.7.2018, an amount of Rs.14,270.40 was deducted from their joint KCC account by op no.2 as insurance premium for insuring the kharif crop of 2018 with op no.1.
13. Admittedly, the complainants have availed crop loan facility against their agricultural land from op no.2 and op no.2 deducted an amount of Rs.14,270.40 on 2.7.2018 from their account for insuring the cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 with op no.1 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. According to complainants, their insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 was damaged and other farmers of village Gigorani, District Sirsa whose crop of Kharif, 2018 were insured with the insurance company have already received insurance claim amount against the damage to their crop, but the complainants have not received any claim amount despite the fact that they have suffered financial loss due to damage of cotton crop of kharif, 2018. In order to prove loss to the complainants due to damage of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018, they have placed on record report of Assistant Statistical Officer, office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa Ex.C10 whereby it was informed that average yield of village Gigorani for Kharif, 2018 was 229.43 Kg. per hectare and threshold yield of Block Nathusari Chopta for Kharif, 2018 was 561.06 Kg. per hectare. According to complainants, since average yield of village Gigorani of Kharif, 2018 is less than from threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta of Kharif, 2018, so as per above said scheme of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, there was damage to the crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. Further, the complainants have also placed on record copy of pass book of Satpal Sahu son of Ram Murti, resident of village Gigorani as Ex.C2 which reveals that on 10.5.2019, an amount of Rs.2,48,114.48 was paid to said Satpal Sahu as insurance claim for damage of his cotton crop in his land situated in village Gigorani of Kharif, 2018. There is nothing on file to disbelieve the version of the complainants. So, it is proved on record that there was also damage to the cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 of complainants, therefore, complainants are entitled to claim amount.
14. Now, the question arises for consideration that which of the ops is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainants?. The op no.1 insurance company has taken a plea that op no.1 has not received premium for insurance of crop in the lands of complainants situated in village Gigorani and the same was not insured with it. Further, op no.1 has averred that banker of complainants has uploaded the name of the village Shahpur Begu in place of Gigorani on the National Crop Insurance Portal wrongly and did not make any effort to rectify the mistake and to correct the name of village In the portal before closure of portal. So, op no.1 is not liable to pay any claim for loss of crop to the complainants. Whereas, as per op no.2 bank, the premium for insurance of crop of complainants of Kharif, 2018 has been accepted by op no.1 without any objection, therefore, op no.1 is liable to pay claim amount for the damage of cotton crop of kharif, 2018 of complainants. The op no.2 has relied upon clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department Notification dated 30.3.2018 according to which insurance company is to verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address and bank account number etc. 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 Govt., 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.
15. The op no.1 insurance company in order to prove its plea has placed on file copy of details of farmers / insurance uploaded on the portal by the op bank as Ex.R2 to show that name of village of complainants has been shown as Kagdana on the insurance portal by op no.2 bank instead of village Gigorani, therefore, crop of complainants in the land of Gigorani was not insured. However, we found no substance in the plea of op no.1 insurance company. The op no.2 bank has categorically stated that premium of Rs.14,270.40 for insuring the cotton crop of complainants of Kharif, 2018 deducted by op no.2 bank was remitted to op no.1 insurance company. The op no.1 although has averred that op no.1 did not receive any premium for insuring crop of complainants, but has not placed on record any documentary proof in this regard. In so far as mistake on the part of op no.2 bank regarding uploading of wrong name of village of complainants is concerned, the op no.1 in its written version has stated that the banker of complainants has uploaded the name of village Shahpur Begu in place of Gigorani on the National Crop Insurance Portal whereas Sh. S.K. Malhotra, Divisional Manager of insurance company op no.1 in his affidavit Ex.RW1/A tendered in evidence on 19.4.2021 has stated that the banker of complainants i.e. HDFC Bank has uploaded the name of the village as Kagdana in place of Gigorani on the National Crop Insurance Portal. So, the op no.1 insurance company which is blaming op no.2 bank for entering wrong name of village of complainants on the insurance portal is not clear in this regard that whether actually village Kagdana or village Shahpur Begu was wrongly entered on the portal instead of village Gigorani of complainants. The document produced on record by op no.1 insurance company i.e. copy of details of farmers uploaded on the portal Ex.R2 where against the KCC account No.50200016361382 name of village Kagdana is mentioned is also not helpful to the op no.1 because as per version of complainants in the amended complaint their KCC account no. is 50200027369419 and account no.50200016361382 was wrongly mentioned. The op no.1 insurance company has also relied upon conditions regarding collection of proposal and premium from farmers as Ex.R3 in which in clause 24.2 it is mentioned that “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. The op no.1 insurance company has also relied copy of minutes of 4th meeting of State Level Grievance Committee held on 14.1.2021 in which it was resolved that in cases of village name mismatch, the concerned bank branch is liable to pay the claim of affected farmers and as per said minutes, bank have to pay the claim in 3612 cases of village mismatch but however, in Annexure-1 regarding Bank wise Grievance under PMFBY (Village Mismatch) attached with the above said minutes of the meeting, there is no mention of HDFC Bank i.e. op no.2 regarding grievance of farmers in Sirsa District and names of eight banks i.e. SBI, OBC, Allahabad Bank, Union Bank, SHGB, CBI, UCO Bank, PNB and Corporation bank which are at mistake in Sirsa District are mentioned in the said Annexure-1. So, the above said minutes of the meeting relied upon by learned counsel for op no.1 are not applicable in this case. Further more, as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department Notification dated 30.3.2018 relied upon by op no.2 bank, the Insurance Company was to verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insurance, area sown, address, bank account number etc. independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the State Govt. 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. So, as per said clause of notification of Haryana Govt. dated 30.3.2018, it was duty of insurance company op no.1 to verify the data of complainants at its own but op no.1 has failed to do so. Further more, the op no.1 insurance company has retained huge amount of premium amount of Rs.14,270.40 of complainants, therefore, it cannot be said that no crop of complainants was insured with it.
16. Now with regard to deficiency in service on the part of op no.2 bank is concerned, the op no.2 bank in a hand written detail provided to the complainants which is placed on record as Ex.C5 has mentioned the name of their village as Gigorani. But in another document placed on record by op no.2 bank itself which is details of crop insurance of Kharif, 2018 and is a computerized document and in this document, crop village name of complainant Sher Singh is mentioned as Shahpur Begu instead of village Gigorani. So, in our considered opinion, op no.2 bank is also deficient in service in this regard. From the record available on file, we are of considered view that both the ops no.1 and 2 insurance company and bank both are equally liable to pay claim amount to the complainants.
17. The complainants have sought payment of Rs.4,27,810/- alongwith interest due to damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2018. According to complainants, they own about 197-8 kanals of agricultural land in village Gigorani alongwith share of Renu Devi, Suman daughters of Joginder Singh and Parmeshwari wife of Vijay Singh and they have placed on file copy of general power of attorney in favour of complainant no.2 Devender. The complainants have sought payment of Rs.4,27,810/- for about more than 24 acres of land at the rate of Rs.17,350/- per acre and have also placed on record copy of statement of account of one Satpal Sahu son of Ram Murti of village Gigorani as Ex.C2, the perusal of which also reveals that he received an amount of Rs.2,48,114.48 on 10.5.2019 as claim amount for the damage of his crop of Kharif, 2018. There is also no rebuttal to the said demand of complainants. There is also no rebuttal to the factum that other farmers of village Gigorani etc. have not received claim amount at the rate of Rs.17,350/- per acre. So, the complainants are entitled to the above said claim amount of Rs.4,27,810/- i.e. for loss of cotton crop in more than 24 acres of land at the rate of 17,350/- per acre from both the ops.
18. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow this complaint against both the ops and direct the ops to pay an amount of Rs.4,27,810/- as insurance claim amount to the complainants in equal share for damage of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 to the complainants alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 1.7.2019 till actual payment within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment etc. and also to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants within above said stipulated period. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Commission. President,
Dated:11.10.2021. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
Typed by:
Jagdish Kumar (Stenographer)
