Haryana

Kaithal

136/20

Sultan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.H.S Nain

04 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.136/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 02.06.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:04.09.2023.

1. Sultan Singh son of Chanda Singh aged 50 years.
2. Neelam wife of Sultan Singh, both residents of Village Sakra, Tehsil Dhand, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainants.

                        Versus

1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager, Kaithal.
2. Oriental Bank of Commerce through Manager at Nigdhu, Tehsil Nilokheri, Distt. Karnal.
3. Deputy Director Agricultural Department, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. H.S.Nain, Advocate, for the complainants.   

                Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                Defence of OP No.2 struck off.

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, G.P. for the OP No.3.

               

ORDER

SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER

        Sultan Singh etc.-Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant No.1 is owner in possession of land measuring 14 Kanals 2 Marla and complainant No.2 is owner in possession of land measuring 2 Kanals 7 Marla situated in Village Sangroli, as detail mentioned in para No.1 of complaint.  The complainants are bank account holders bearing No.15015115003996 with the OP No.2.  The crops of complainants were insured by OP No.1 under Prime Minister Crops Insurance Policy and the premium amount of the insured crops was deducted from the aforesaid bank account by OP No.2.  The complainants had grown paddy crop in the land.  The paddy crops of complainants, due to inundation, were damaged in the year 2018.  The survey of the damaged crops was done and 18 Kls. of paddy crops of complainants was found damaged.  The complainants requested the OPs to pay the compensation amount of damaged paddy crops, but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission.  OP No.1 contested the complaint by filing written version mentioning therein that the land of complainant is situated in Village Sangroli as mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint; that the banker of complainant has shown land of complainant in Village Kaul, so, the village name is mismatch with original village of the complainant.  So, as per terms and conditions of insurance policy, insurance company is not liable for any loss of complainant’s crops and only bank of complainant is liable for the loss of complainant as bank has shown the crops of complainant in Village Kaul as per data sent by the bank to the answering OP; that role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institutions that are part of this scheme; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy 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.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             OP No.2 did not file the written statement despite availing several opportunities, so, the defence of OP No.2 was struck off vide order dt. 17.05.2022 passed by this Commission.

5.             OP No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction.  On merits, it is stated that a notified committee conducted the survey under PMFBY and depicted the loss approximately 53% in survey report and further the same report was submitted to related insurance company OGICL; that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and the answering OP.

6.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence. OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents annexure-R3 to Annexure-R7 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

8.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.             Ld. counsel for the complainants has argued that the complainant No.1 is owner in possession of land measuring 14 Kanals 2 Marla and complainant No.2 is owner in possession of land measuring 2 Kanals 7 Marla situated in Village Sangroli.  It is further argued that the complainants are bank account holders bearing No.15015115003996 with the OP No.2.  The crops of complainants were insured by OP No.1 under Prime Minister Crops Insurance Policy and the premium amount of the insured crops was deducted from the aforesaid bank account by OP No.2.  The complainants had grown paddy crop in the land.  The paddy crops of complainants, due to inundation, were damaged in the year 2018.  The survey of the damaged crops was done and 18 Kls. of paddy crops of complainants was found damaged.  The complainants requested the OPs to pay the compensation amount of damaged paddy crops, but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.

10.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that the land of complainant is situated in Village Sangroli as mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is further argued that the banker of complainant has shown land of complainant in Village Kaul, so, the village name is mismatch with original village of the complainant.  It is further argued that as per terms and conditions of insurance policy, insurance company is not liable for any loss of complainants’ crops and only bank of complainant is liable for the loss of complainant as bank has shown the crops of complainant in Village Kaul as per data sent by the bank to the  OP No.2.

11.            Ld. G.P. for the OP No.3 argued that the claim does not arise because average yield is greater than threshold yield.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.

12.            During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for OP No.1 further contended that OP No.2 bank had uploaded/sent wrong insured village name of complainant as Kaul instead of Village Sangroli as is clear from page No.2 of yield sheet-Annexure-R1.  From perusal of this document, we found that village name of complainant was mentioned as Kaul and in this regard, contention of OP No.1 is believable. The OP No.1 further contended that as per “Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY)”, OP No.2 bank is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant for his wrong/mistake. “Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY)” is relevant and extract part of sub-Clause 17.2 of Clause 17 “Collection of Proposals and Premium from Farmers”, reads as under:-

                “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”.

13.            So as per above Guidelines, it is clear that for any mistake in uploading/providing the data of farmer concerned on the Government Portal regarding PMFBY, the concerned bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any to the farmer concerned for his wrong/mistake, as such, in the case in hand, it is admitted fact that OP No.2 bank uploaded/provided wrong insured village name of complainant as Kaul instead of Sangroli, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 bank, as such, as per above Guidelines, OP No.2 bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any to the complainant. In this regard, view of this Commission is also fully supported by the case law titled Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & Anr., Petitioners Versus Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & Anr., Respondents, Revision Petition Nos.2673 of 2013 with Revision Petition No.1226 to 1230, 1287 to 1289, 1947 to 1965, 1967, 1968, 2032, 2033, 2035 to 2046 of 2014 and Revision Petition No.2695 of 2013 in Appeal No.761 of 2012. D.O.D. 03.10.2015 (NCDRC, New Delhi), wherein, it is held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) Crop Insurance Scheme- Insurance premium debited in loan account of agriculturists by the bank by receiving service charges on premium collected from agriculturists – Damage of groundnut crops – Repudiation of claim – Deficiency in service – Complaint allowed against bank in appeal – Legality of – There was relationship of consumer and service provider between agriculturists and bank – As per Clause 19 of guidelines to Financial Institutions, Financial Institutions were to be only responsible for all omissions and commissions committed by them – Prima facie, error has been committed by bank in remitting amount of premium recovered from agriculturists while sending it to insurance company in wrong name of village of complainants – Bank rightly held liable to reimburse all the losses.

14.            So far as the liability of OP No.1-insurance company is concerned, it was required for OP No.1 insurance company to verify the data of farmers concerned within two months of cutoff date and drawn attention of this Commission towards “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018” and its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii is relevant, 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”.

 

15.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was  required for OP No.1 insurance company to verify the data/information provided by OP No.2 bank regarding the farmers concerned within the period of cutoff date of two months and if any discrepancy/mistake is found by OP No.1, then intimate to OP No.2 bank in this regard, but in the case in hand, OP No.1 had neither raised any objection within the period of cutoff date of two months nor intimated to OP No.2 bank regarding any discrepancy in the data uploaded by it, and now at the time when crops of complainant was destroyed and he is demanding the claim amount as per policy from it, then OP No.1 refused to pay the same on this flimsy ground, which also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

16.            So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that OP No.2 bank had uploaded/supplied wrong village name of complainant to OP No.1 insurance company and then, on receiving the said wrong information by OP No.1 from OP No.2, OP No.1 had not raised this objection/issue with OP No.2 bank within the period of cutoff date of two months, as such, both the OPs are deficient in providing the services to the complainant, due to which, the complainant suffered mental agony, physical harassment as well as financial loss. So, in view of “Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY)” and “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018”, both the OPs, 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.

17.            So far as the question of how much land was insured is concerned.  It is clear from the pleadings that Sultan Singh-complainant No.1 is owner in possession of land measuring 14 Kanal 2 Marla and Neelam wife of Sultan Singh-complainant No.2 is owner in possession of land measuring 2 Kanal 7 Marla and in this way, both the complainants are owner in possession of 16 Kanal 9 Marla.  It is pertinent to mention here that as per jamabandi-Annexure-C1, the land is joint in the name of both the complainants and as per statement of account-Annexure-C2, it is clear that both the complainants are having joint account from which the premium amount was deducted by the OP No.2-bank.  So, both the complainants are entitled for compensation jointly.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9504/- per acre as per Annexure-R3 & Annexure-R4.  Hence, for 16 Kanal 9 Marla loss, both the complainants are entitled for total loss amounting to Rs.19,543/- (Rs.19,008/- for 16 kanal+Rs.535/- for 9 marla loss) . 

18.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the total amount of Rs.19,543/- shall be given to both the complainants alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization which shall be given by OPs No.1 & 2 jointly and severally within 45 days from today.  The Ops No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainants.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted against OPs No.1 & 2 and dismissed against OP No.3.   

19.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs No.1 & 2 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 both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:04.09.2023.

 

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.