BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 391 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 22.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 25.08.2022.
Surjeet Singh aged about 44 years son of Shri Amar Singh, resident of village Nejiakhera, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Shah Satnam Ji Nagar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Manager.
...…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. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Surinder Sihag, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Bajaj, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018.
2. The brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist having land in village Nejiakhera, Tehsil and District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018. He has further alleged that he is having his KCC account with op no.1 bank bearing no. 09895111004983. He had sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2018. It is further averred that on 31.7.2018, the amount of premium of Rs.536/- and on 2.8.2018, the amount of premium of Rs.3331.99 were deducted by op no.1 bank from his bank account for insurance of his crop of Kharif, 2018 as per scheme of the Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna and as such his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 was got insured with op no.2. That crops of number of farmers of village Nejiakhera including complainant was damaged on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and as such complainant is entitled to receive compensation from the Government/ insurance company but complainant did not receive any amount of compensation from ops. The complainant approached the ops and requested them to pay claim amount but firstly ops kept on avoiding the requests of complainant on one false pretext or the other but later on it was disclosed that account of complainant was not linked with the adhar card and ultimately in the month of May, 2019 the ops declined to pay any compensation. If the account of complainant was not linked with adhar card then deducted premium of complainant might have been refunded to his account. The act and conduct on the part of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment, financial loss and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written version submitting therein that as per term of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY scheme), which was launched by Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on 13.2.2016, for the farmers who have sought crop loan from any Financial Institutions, it was mandatory for the Banks to insure all the borrowers under the scheme. The premium of the insurance was to be deducted from the account of borrower and was to be remitted to op no.1 insurance company by the bank. In the present case, the bank has debited the premium amount from the account of complainant as insurance premium for Kharif, 2018 and was remitted to op no.2. As per clause 6.3.1 of revised operational guidelines of PMFBY, the adhar card has been made mandatory for availing crop insurance from Kharif, 2017 season onward. As such detail regarding above said account could not be uploaded on the portal of the insurance company due to non availability of adhar card. The op no.2 was duly informed that the information was not uploaded in the portal of the company for want of adhar card. It is further submitted that complainant was advised to deposit the adhar card with the bank as insurance was necessary on the instructions from Govt. of India, but he refused to get the crop insured. As such, the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint against the answering op. That mere sanctioning/ disbursement of crop loan and submission of proposals/ declaration and remittance of premium by farmer/ bank, without explicit intent to raise the crop, does not constitute acceptance of risk by insurance company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding objective of scheme, coverage of farmers, coverage of crops, general exclusions, not maintainability for want of jurisdiction, non intimation, 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 and non impleading of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that as per record as well as record available on the portal, the crop of complainant was not got insured with answering op, therefore, no compensation was payable to the complainant. However, it is submitted that as per guidelines issued by the Govt., the linking of adhar card of the borrower-farmer with the loan account was mandatory from Kharif, 2017. It appears that complainant failed to get his adhar card linked with his loan account with op no.1, therefore, his crop could not have been got insured and thus, complainant is not entitled to any compensation from answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1/A, copies of documents i.e. jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C2, his pass book Ex.C3, pass book of Krishan Kumar son of Amar Singh Ex.C4, detail provided by bank Ex.C5, again his pass book Ex.C6 and khasra girdawari Ex.C7.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Surender Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex.R1 and copies of documents i.e. customer account ledger report Ex.R2, email dated 18.11.2019 sent to insurance company Ex.R3, letter dated 12.6.2018 written complainant for submission of copy of his adhar card for linking the same with his account Ex.R4, fire service report Ex.R5 with rapat. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Virender Kumar, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R6 and copies of documents i.e. operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R7 and minutes of the 4th meeting held on 14.01.2021 Ex.R8.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. The record reveals that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 /Ain which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. There is no dispute of the fact that on 31.7.2018, premium amount of Rs.536.08 and on 2.8.2018, premium amount of Rs.3331.99 were deducted by op no.1 bank for insuring the cotton crop of 2018 of complainant with op no.2 insurance company. The reason put forth by both the ops for non insurance of crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 is that as adhar card of complainant was not linked with his account, therefore, his crop of Kharif, 2018 could not be insured. It is the specific plea of op no.1 bank that detail regarding account of complainant could not be uploaded on the portal of insurance company due to non availability of adhar card. The op no.1 has further pleaded that op no.2 insurance company was duly informed that information was not uploaded in the portal of the company for want of adhar card. It is also specific plea of op no.1 bank that complainant was advised to deposit the adhar card with the bank but he refused to get the crop insured and as such complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. The op no.2 insurance company has also taken a specific stand that as complainant failed to get his adhar card linked with his loan account with op no.1 bank, therefore, his crop could not have been got insured and thus, complainant is not entitled to any compensation. The op no.1 bank has also placed on file a copy of letter dated 12.6.2018 written to the complainant whereby he was asked to get his adhar card linked with his account up to 30.6.2018 for insurance of his crop and to avail benefits of the scheme of the PMFBY. The op no.2 insurance company has also placed on file copy of operational guidelines of PMFBY as Ex.R7 and the perusal of clause 6.3.1 of said operational guidelines reveals that aadhaar has been made mandatory for availing crop insurance from Kharif 2017 season onwards and therefore, all banks were advised to mandatory obtain adhar number of their farmers and the same applies for non loanee farmers enrolled through banks/ insurance companies/ insurance intermediaries.
9. Further more, in the report/ decision of SLGC dated 14.01.2021 Ex.R8 at Sr. No.4 it was resolved as under:-
Minutes of the 4th Meeting of State Level Grievance Committee(SLGC) under the chairmanship of Shri Vijay Singh Dahiya, IAC, Director General, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Haryana held on 14.01.2021 at 11.00 AM.
4. Non-Availability of Aadhar : Joint Director(Statistics) informed that 576 cases in Bhiwani and Panipat District where farmers not insured due to non availability of Aadhar. Chief Manager, SLBC Haryana apprised the house that some farmers deny to share the
Aadhar and it becomes difficult to get Aadhar forcefully, which is mandatory for enrolment under PMFBY through Gazette Notification issued by Government of India on 08.02.2017. The District wise/Bank wise detail of farmers is at Annexure-4. The Cmmittee decided that these cases considered as rejected.
10. Since, op no.1 bank had already notified the general public through letter dated 12.6.2018 asking them to get their Aahdar card linked with his account as per requirement of the scheme but complainant failed to do so and therefore, op no.1 bank also informed op no.2 that information was not uploaded in the portal of the company for want of adhar card, therefore, it cannot be said that op no.1 bank is deficient in service of any type. Similarly, as crop of complainant could not be insured with op no.2 insurance company for want of adhar card, therefore, op no.2 insurance company is also not deficient in service and is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. So, the complaint of complainant deserves dismissal.
11. In view of our above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 25.08.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
