BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 421 of 2022.                                                                       

                                                           Date of Institution :    01.07.2022.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    22.02.2024.

Harpal Singh aged about 78 years son of Shri Nikka Singh, resident of village Lakarwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Sukhchain, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.

2.  Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Hisar through its Divisional Manager.

3. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa.

...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT                

                   SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….MEMBER                               

                 SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Manbir Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                   Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.                                                

                   Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).

2.       In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist and is owner in possession of land measuring 83 kanals 11 marlas (as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) situated in village Lakarwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 and said land has been mortgaged with op no.1. The complainant had sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 in the above mentioned land. That complainant raised crop loan under Kissan Credit Limit facility from op no.1 and as per policy of Government of India namely Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for the agriculturists, the op no.1 got insured the cotton crop with op no.2 and debited a sum of Rs.10781.28 on 31.07.2018 in the account of complainant as crop insurance premium. Thus, the cotton crop of kharif, 2018 of complainant was insured by op no.1 with op no.2 but op no.1 did not supply copy of insurance policy despite his request. It is further averred that crop of kharif, 2018 in his village including his crop was damaged on account of natural calamities and op no.3 surveyed the fields of village and submitted its report to ops no.1 and 2. The op no.2 thereafter settled the claim of the farmer of his village and paid the amount of loss to them and complainant has been paid amount of Rs.49,314.91 only on 04.06.2019 whereas complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,70,360/- from ops no.1 and 2. The complainant has been paid compensation for the loss of his cotton crop in land measuring 1.21 hectare only as op no.1 instead of making payment of insurance premium of Rs.10781.29 for entire coverage of crop in 83 kanals 11 marlas (4.18 hectare) paid only Rs.1742.40 for coverage the risk of 1.21 hectare of land. That thereafter complainant approached op no.1 but they put the matter off with one pretext or the other asserting that whatever amount has been paid by insurance company same has been credited in his account. It is further averred that complainant has not received remaining amount from any of ops no.1 and 2 despite his several efforts i.e. despite moving applications at CM Window, Haryana and to the higher authorities rather after end of COVID disease in June, 2021 he was conveyed by op no.1 that amount of Rs.9038.88 has been transferred back in his account by them and as such ops have caused deficiency in service towards the complainant and have also caused unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that on the request of complainant, the answering op has got insured his cotton crop sown in kharif, 2018 with op no.2. That complainant has already received amount of compensation on account of loss of the crops of complainant to the tune of Rs.49,319.91 from the op no.2. The op no.2 has charged the amount of insurance premium from complainant and insured kharif 2018 crop of complainant, hence it is op no.2 who has to indemnify the loss of the crops of complainant. The answering op has not charged any penny on account of insurance from complainant, hence there has been no liability of answering op to indemnify the loss of the complainant, if any. It is further submitted that initially the answering op has debited a sum of Rs.10,781.28 on account of insurance premium to the loan account of complainant for the insurance of kharif, 2018 crops of complainant.  After considering the prescribed rate of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna as per Government notification the amount of premium comes to Rs.1440/- per hectare. Accordingly only a sum of Rs.1742.40 was to be debited to the account of complainant. Hence as per norms of PMFBY, a sum of Rs.1742.40 has been transferred to op no.2 for the insurance of the crops of complainant. It is further submitted that premium was calculated by answering op as per declaration of the complainant and the claim received as per said declaration which has already been credited to the account of complainant. Thereafter on reconciliation the premium difference of Rs.9038.88 which was excess deducted from the account of complainant has been credited to his account. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.       Op no.2 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that Govt. notification and operational guidelines of PMFBY are binding upon any individual loanee or non-laonee farmer, bank and insurance company, if there is insurance. However, as premium of Rs.1742.40 for covering the risk of cotton crop of kharif 2018 of complainant of 1.21 hectare land of village Lakarwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa was received from op no.1 bank and as per yield assessment record of loss prepared and submitted by op no.3, claim amount of Rs.49314.91 has been paid for the crop under coverage of insurance for which the premium was paid by op no.1 to answering op. The op no.1 bank never paid the premium to answering op for 4.18 hectare land of complainant and kept and used the same with them despite mandate of operational guidelines of PMFBY issued by Govt. of India for covering the risk of all loanee farmers and op no.1 bank failed to make payment of premium for total land of complainant, resultantly there was no coverage for entire land of complainant and on portal (NCIP) premium of Rs.1742.40 for 1.21 hectare land of complainant has been paid, hence answering op has no liability to pay any compensation for remaining land of complainant. However, if bank had failed to pay the premium of insurance for getting the coverage of insurance of crop of complainant of entire land, in that eventuality, answering op cannot be held liable to make payment of any damages, compensation to the complainant for remaining land. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.

5.       Op no.3 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections.  It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or survey of loss of crop is to be prepared by op no.3 and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of op no.3 in this regard and therefore, prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.

6.       The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C15.

7.       On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Puja Incharge HYB Legal as Ex.R1, operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R2 and minutes of meeting Ex.R2. OP no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Deputy Director of Agriculture Sirsa as Ex. RW3/A, Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018 Ex.RW3/1 and report of loss as Ex. RW3/2. OP no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Raul Chhabra, Branch Manager as Ex.R4.

8.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.3 and have gone through the case file.

9.       The complainant has claimed insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of kharif, 2018 in his 83 kanals 11 marlas of land situated in village Lakarwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa. According to the complainant, although the op no.1 bank deducted the insurance premium amount of Rs.10,781.28/- on 31.07.2018 for insuring his cotton crop of kharif, 2018 in total land 83 kanals 11 marlas but op no.1 paid only insurance amount of Rs.1742.40/- to the op no.2 for insuring his cotton crop in 1.21 hectare only and as such he has received only amount of Rs.49,314.91 from op no.2 insurance company and is entitled to remaining insurance claim amount of Rs.1,21,045/-. It is proved from the copy of statement of account of complainant Ex.C4 that op no.1 bank deducted premium amount of Rsa.10,781.28/- from the account of complainant on 31.07.2018 and it is also proved on record from copy of jamabandi Ex.C2 that complainant is having 83 kanals 11 marlas of land. From the record available on file, it is also evident that although premium amount of Rs.10,781.28/- was deducted by op no.1 bank from the account of complainant but only amount of Rs.1742.40/- was paid by op no.1 bank to the insurance company and  op no.1 bank retained the remaining amount of Rs.9038.88 with it without any reason and thereafter on the protest of the complainant regarding receiving of less compensation amount, the op no.1 bank refunded back the remaining premium amount of Rs.9038.88 to the complainant on 17.03.2021 i.e. after more than two and half years. Though op no.1 bank has averred that premium was calculated by answering op as per declaration of complainant and claim received as per said declaration but the said version of op no.1 is not supported by any documentary evidence as well as any cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant has suffered financial loss due to the negligence of op no.1 bank. The op no.2 insurance company has already paid compensation amount of Rs.49314.91 to the complainant for loss of cotton crop in 1.21 hectares of land against which the op no.2 received premium amount from complainant through op no.1 and remaining claim amount is to be paid to the complainant by op no.1 bank due to its negligence and deficiency in service. It appears that op no.1 bank in order to save its skin has wrongly asserted that only a sum of Rs.1742.40/- was to be debited from the account of complainant because op no.1 bank has taken the said plea against the record available on file because complainant is having 83 kanals 11 marlas of land and no declaration of complainant about sowing of his cotton crop in 1.21 hectare of land is placed on file by op no.1 bank and moreover premium amount of Rs.10781.28/- was deducted by op no.1 bank from the account of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop in total land of 4.18 hectare but op no.1 bank wrongly retained the remaining premium amount of Rs.9038.88 with it without any cause and reason and ultimately refunded the said amount after a long period on the excuse of excess premium deducted. The op no.1 bank has not justified the payment of premium amount of Rs.1742.40 to op no.2 insurance company and has also not justified the reason for retaining the remaining amount for such a long time. From the report of Agriculture department, Sirsa Ex.RW3/2, it is evident that there was loss to the cotton crop in village Lakranwali in Kharif, 2018 as average yield of that village was 261.51 Kgs. per hectare whereas threshold yield of block Odhan was 602.64 Kgs. per hectare and as such there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in his 4.18 hectares of land. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 in Sirsa district was Rs.72,000/- as is evident from Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018. So as per formula of operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to remaining claim amount of Rs.1,21,045/- and op no.1 bank only is liable to pay the said claim amount to the complainant.

10.     In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua op no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 bank to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,21,045/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 01.07.2022 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the op no.1 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint against ops no.2 and 3 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced:                             Member            Member          President

Dt. 22.02.2024.                                                       District Consumer Disputes                                                                                                                                                                             Redressal Commission, Sirsa.