Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/8/2020

Gulab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance company - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Jindal

15 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    8 of 2020.

                                                                   Date of institution:         06.01.2020.

                                                                   Date of decision: 15.07.2022

 

Gulab Singh s/o Shri Pirthi Singh, aged about 53 years, r/o village Bakana (Sharifgarh) (93), Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                      Versus

 

1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
2. Central Bank of India, G.T. Road, Shahabad Markanda, Tehsil Shahabad, Distt. Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture & FW, Government of Haryana, Sector-7, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Love Kumar, Adv. for the complainant.

                   Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Narinder Rohilla, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

                   Shri Mukesh Kumar, ADA for Opposite Party No.3.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that complainant is permanent resident of village Bakana and having about 6 acres of land in that village. He was having agriculture loan account/KCC with OP No.2 bearing Account No.1658348475. He sown paddy crop in the season of 2018 in his 6 acres land and got insurance cover under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) from OP No.1 through OP No.2 and the premium for khariff 2018 amounting Rs.2975/- was paid to OP No.1 through OP No.2 on 31.07.2018. He sown paddy crop after incurring Rs.10,000/- per acre on the preparation of fields for crops, paniri, electricity bills etc. There were heavy rains in the area during the period of August 2018 to September 2018, due to which, his standing crops was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OPs, who visited the flood affected land and assessed the claim of the crop loss to the tune of Rs.36172.26 per hectare. He visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but all in vain, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their respective written statements.

4.                OP No.1 in its written statement raising preliminary objections regarding No Coverage of alleged loss; Objective of Scheme; Coverage of Farmers; Coverage of Crops; General Exclusion; Not maintainable for want of jurisdiction; Non Intimation; Non submission of proof of loss or weather report; Limited Coverage as per scheme; Yield based claims are decided by Government; No Survey, no quantification of loss; privity of contract; Impleading of necessary parties; Complicated facts and law of contract; Right to file amended Reply reserved and Not covering date of loss. On merits, it is submitted that after getting the intimation of loss, Government appointed experts and surveyors had assessed the loss of crop of farmers and as per that, complainant suffered crop loss to the tune of Rs.10461/- and as per guidelines of Government, said loss has already been paid by the OP No.1 directly in the bank OP No.2. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

5.                The OP No.2 in its written statement stated that OP No.2 paid the premium on behalf of complainant Account No.1658348475 land 2.023, premium about Rs.2975/- under total RTGS amount of Rs.657505/- on 07.08.2019 in respect of insurance of crops of the farmer under PMFBY. Furthermore, as and when notice of this Commission received, it wrote a letter Ref. No.BM/Shahbad/2019-20/00194 dated 04.03.2020 and further reminder Ref. No.BM/Shahbad/2019-20/00198 dated 13.03.2020 to OP No.1 for doing the needful of the claim of complainant, but till date, there was no communication/letter received from OP No.1. There is no deficiency in its service and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it with heavy costs.

6.                The OP No.3 in its written statement stated that the farmer gave an intimation on 25.09.2018 and same was sent to insurance company to assess the loss and committee conducted the survey and submitted the report directly to the insurance company and concerned BAO/ADO/ATM/BTM was eye witness in the survey, but in the village Bakana, claim arised on the basis of average yield i.e. as per CCEs survey, average yield found 1905.73 kg per hectare, while the threshold yield was 3752.46 kg per hectare. Due to shortfall in yield claim arised in village Rs.36172/- per hectare and this report was sent timely to the insurance company for settlement.

7.                The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence.

8.                On the other hand, the OP No.2, in order to support its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 and closed its evidence. The OP No.1, in order to support its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A along with two documents which were also wrongly exhibited as Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 and the same were read as Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6 respectively. The OP No.3, in support of its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW3A and closed its evidence.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

10.              Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is permanent resident of village Bakana and having about 6 acres of land in that village. The complainant was having agriculture loan account/KCC with OP No.2 bearing Account No.1658348475 and sown paddy crop in the season of 2018 in his 6 acres land and got insurance cover under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) from OP No.1 through OP No.2 and the premium for khariff 2018 amounting Rs.2975/- was paid to OP No.1 through OP No.2 on 31.07.2018. There were heavy rains in the area during the period of August 2018 to September 2018, due to which, standing crops of complainant was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OPs, who visited the flood affected land and assessed the claim of the crop loss to the tune of Rs.36172.26 per hectare. The complainant visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but all in vain, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11.              Learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that after getting the intimation of loss, Government appointed experts and surveyors had assessed the loss of crop of farmers and as per that, complainant suffered crop loss to the tune of Rs.10461/- and as per guidelines of Government, said loss has already been paid by the OP No.1 directly in the bank OP No.2. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

12.              Learned counsel for the Op No.2 has argued that OP No.2 paid the premium on behalf of complainant Account No.1658348475 land 2.023, premium about Rs.2975/- under total RTGS amount of Rs.657505/- on 07.08.2019 in respect of insurance of crops of the farmer under PMFBY. Furthermore, as and when notice of this Commission received, it wrote a letter Ref. No.BM/Shahbad/2019-20/00194 dated 04.03.2020 and further reminder Ref. No.BM/Shahbad/2019-20/00198 dated 13.03.2020 to OP No.1 for doing the needful of the claim of complainant, but till date, there was no communication/letter received from OP No.1, as such, there is no deficiency in its service.

13.              The ADA for OP No.3 has argued that the farmer gave an intimation on 25.09.2018 and same was sent to insurance company to assess the loss and committee conducted the survey and submitted the report directly to the insurance company and concerned BAO/ADO/ATM/BTM was eye witness in the survey, but in the village Bakana, claim arised on the basis of average yield i.e. as per CCEs survey, average yield found 1905.73 kg per hectare, while the threshold yield was 3752.46 kg per hectare. Due to shortfall in yield claim arised in village Rs.36172/- per hectare and this report was sent timely to the insurance company for settlement.

14.              There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant was having agriculture loan account/KCC account with OP No.2 bearing Account No.1658348475 vide copy of Passbook Ex.C-1. There is also no dispute that in the Khariff year 2018, the complainant had sown paddy crops in his land and OP No.2 got insured the same with the OP No.1, under Government Scheme i.e. Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (referred here PMFBY) and OP No.2 deducted the premium amount of Rs.2975/- on 31.07.2018 from the account of complainant and paid the same to the OP No.1 towards said PMFBY for Kharif year 2018, vide Statement of Account Ex.C-1.

15.              As per complainant, due to heavy rains in the month of August 2018 to September 2018, crops standing in about 6 acres of his land had been destroyed and in this regard, OP No.3 Agriculture Department assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs.36172.26 per hectare vide document Ex.C6, but the OPs failed to pay the same the claim amount, despite repeated requests by him.

16.              At the time of arguments, learned counsel for OP No.1 contended that OP No.2 bank had uploaded/sent wrong village name of complainant as Babain instead of Bakana vide document Ex.R-5, as such, 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. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 has contended that OP No.2 had sent the premium amount and required information about the complainant to OP No.1 vide documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 and after loss suffered by the complainant to his insured crop, OP No.2 had sent letters dated 04.3.2020 and then 13.03.2020 Ex.R-3 & Ex.R-4, requesting to release the claim amount to the complainant as per insurance policy, but it did not paid the same, which amounts to deficiency on its part.“Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY)”  Ex.C-8 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”.

17.              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. From the pleadings and documents on record, we found that in the case in hand, OP No.2 bank uploaded/provided wrong village name of complainant as Babain instead of Bakana to OP No.2, 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.

18.              At the time of arguments, learned counsel for OP No.2 has contended that for the sake of discussion, if it is assumed that OP No.2 bank has uploaded wrong data/village name of complainant on the Government Portal, even then, 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”.   

 

19.              So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was the 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. In the written statement, OP No.1 insurance company alleged about paying Rs.10461/- to the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his crops, which is not understandable, because, on the one hand, OP No.1 is alleging that “OP No.2 had sent wrong village name of complainant as Babain instead of Bakana and as such, OP No.2 bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any to the complainant for his wrong/mistake”, but on the other hand, OP No.1 is alleging about paying Rs.10461/- to the complainant for his loss due to destruction of his crops. So, both above contentions of OP No.1 are self-contradictory to each other, which cause serious dent to the contentions of OP No.1. Moreover, the complainant has denied about receiving any amount from OP No.1. However, OP No.1 has also failed to produce any documentary evidence on the case file to prove that it had ever paid Rs.10461/- to the complainant. So, this contention of OP No.1 regarding paying Rs.10461/- to the complainant, is not believable, hence rejected.                

20.              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.

21.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? The complainant alleged that he sown paddy crop in the season of Khariff 2018 in about 6 acres, which was destroyed, and in this regard, the complainant produced copy of letter written by Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra to Area Manager, Oriental General Insurance Company Limited, Kurukshetra on the case file as Ex.C-5, wherein, in column No.7 “Area Affected (Acre)”, land of complainant is mentioned “5 acres”. Moreover, in its reply at Para No.4, OP No.2 bank also mentioned about insurance of 2.023 hectare land of complainant, which also comes to about 5 acres (2.023 x 2.48). So, from above, it is clear that crops of 5 acres of land of complainant was destroyed. From “Village wise A. yield, Threshold Yield, Sum Insured and claim of paddy crop under PMFBY for Kharif 2018-19 District Thanesar” Ex.C6 in column “Shahabad” at Sr. No.24, Threshold Yield per kg/hectare of village Bakana (village of complainant) is mentioned as 3752.46 and claim amount was shown as Rs.36172.26 per hectare. Since complainant suffered loss of his 5 acres of land, therefore, the claim amount, to be paid to the complainant, is as under:-

                   Claim amount                          =       Rs.36172.26 per hectare

                   1 Hectare                                 =       2.47 acre.

                   Loss suffered by complainant =       5 acres

                   Rs.36172.26/2.47                    =       Rs.14645 per acre

                   Rs.14645 x 5 acres                            =       Rs.73225/-

         

22.              So, in view of above calculation, the complainant is entitled to receive the claim amount of Rs.73,225/-, from both the OPs, for the loss suffered by him in 5 acres of his land. Since throughout the complaint, complainant has not specifically alleged any act of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 nor the same was proved, therefore, complaint qua OP No.3 is liable to be dismissed.

23.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OPs No.1 & 2 and dismissed against OP No.3. We direct OPs No.1 & 2 jointly and severally to make the payment of Rs.73,225/- to the complainant. The OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to deficiency in services on their part along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs No.1 & 2 are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the award amount of Rs.73,225/- shall carry interest @ 6% simple per annum from the date of this order till its actual realization and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against OPs No.1 & 2. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:15.07.2022.

    

 

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member)                                                 DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.