BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 131 of 2020.                                                                    

                                                               Date of Institution :    10.06.2020.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    25.01.2023.

Labh Chand, aged about 70 years son of Shri Ramditta son of Shri Ruldu Ram, resident of village Ahmedpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                             Versus.

1. Punjab National Bank, City Thana Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.

2. Insurance Company, the particulars of the company shall be disclosed by op no.1.

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

Present:       Sh. K.S. Mehra, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. D.D. Kandoi, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

ORDER

                   The complainant has 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 party no.1 bank (hereinafter referred to as Op) and as per complainant name of insurance company is to be disclosed by op no.1 bank.

2.       In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist having 65 kanals agricultural land ( as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 situated in village Ahmedpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The complainant has obtained loan against above said land from op bank vide KCC account No. 00685111002091. It is further averred that as per Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna of Central Govt. of India, on 15.07.2019 the op bank deducted premium amount of Rs.5069.12 for insurance of crop of complainant of Kharif, 2019 covering all risks of natural calamities and also assured the complainant that in case of any kind of damage to his crop, he will get compensation amount. That in Kharif, 2019 complainant had sown cotton/ paddy crop in the above said land and he and his whole family depends upon agricultural income. It is further averred that said crop of complainant was badly damaged due to natural calamities and complainant suffered heavy loss. The complainant approached the op bank for payment of compensation and requested the op bank to admit his claim but instead of giving any plausible reason the op issued letter dated 15.5.2020 to the effect that complainant is duplicate farmer and PMFBY portal is unable to upload detail of the complainant and due to this reason, the op has debited the above said amount of Rs.5069.12 in the above said bank account of complainant. It is further averred that once the Kharif 2019 crop of complainant was insured with the insurance company by deducting premium amount, the question of returning back the amount does not arise at all and the error in portal as alleged in the impugned letter is not binding upon the complainant and he is legally entitled to get compensation from the op and insurance company jointly and severally. The ops have declined genuine claim of complainant without any rhyme or reason and the above said impugned letter dated 15.5.2020 is null and void and liable to be set aside. The act and conduct of the ops comes under the ambit of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, suppression of true and material facts, estoppal and jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is submitted that as per PMFBY scheme, a sum of Rs.5069.12 was debited in the KCC account of complainant on 15.7.2019 as premium for crop insurance of Kharif, 2019. However, the crop of complainant could not be got insured by the insurance company, because on the PMFBY Portal, the name of the complainant was placed in the list of “DUPLICATE FARMER”. The answering op on noticing this mistake in the PMFBY portal raised the issue with the PMFBY portal, insurance company, IDM, Sirsa, Circle Office telephonically as well as through emails, but no solution for the same was provided till 15.08.2019. Therefore, the answering op finding itself unable to cover the complainant under PMFBY for Kharif, 2019, the amount of insurance premium of Rs.5069.12 which was debited on 15.07.2019 was paid back in his account on 5.10.2019 vide Transaction No. AA112683. It is further submitted that complainant was apprised of the above situation about the non insurance of the crop of complainant during Kharif 2019 crop season by showing the name of complainant as Duplicate Farmer on the portal of PMFBY. The answering op had debited the amount of insurance premium in the account of complainant on 15.7.2019, but later on the same was reversed on 5.10.2019, because the crop of the complainant was not insured by PMFBY portal. So, the answering op is not liable to pay any amount as compensation to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.       Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents i.e. letter dated 15.5.2020 Ex.C1, statement of account Ex.C2, jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C3, khasra girdawari Ex.C4, statement of account of Vinkal son of Labh Chand Ex.C5, statement of account of Bhajan Lal son of Ranja Ram Ex.C7 and report of Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa Ex.C8.     

5.       On the other hand, op bank has tendered affidavit of Sh. Subhash Chander, Branch Manageras Ex.R1, email dated 29.7.2019 sent by bank for resolving the issue of error of duplicate farmers Ex.R2, letter dated 5.10.2019 regarding recommendation to reverse the premium amounts Ex.R3 and statement of account Ex.R4.

6.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.       It is an admitted case of the parties that on 15.07.2019, a sum of Rs.5069.12 was deducted from the loan account of complainant by op bank for insurance of his crop of Kharif, 2019 season as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. According to complainant he had sown cotton crop in his whole agricultural land measuring 65 kanals in Kharif, 2019 which was damaged and in this regard complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,44,000/- at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre. But however, the perusal of khasra girdwari placed on file by complainant himself as Ex.C4 reveals that complainant had sown cotton crop in only 12 marlas of his land. It is also an admitted fact that crop of complainant of Kharif, 2019 could not be insured on the Insurance Portal on account of error of Duplicate Farmer. As per record placed on file by op bank as Ex.R3 and Ex.R4, the amount of Rs.5069.12 was reversed back to the account of complainant on 10.07.2019. The op bank also raised the above said issue of non insurance of crop of farmers including complainant with the PMFBY Portal, Insurance Company etc. vide its email dated 29.07.2019 but as no solution for the same was provided till 15.08.2019 and therefore, op bank finding no other option ultimately remitted back the premium amount of Rs.5069.12 in the account of complainant. Since op bank deducted premium amount from the account of complainant for insuring his crop with insurance company but his crop could not be insured due to above said error in the portal of insurance, therefore, op bank remitted back the premium amount to the complainant. Therefore, op bank is not at fault as op bank discharged its liability and it cannot be said that op bank is deficient in service. Moreover, as already mentioned above, the complainant had sown cotton crop in only 12 marlas of land as per his own document and it cannot be said that his entire cotton crop in 12 marlas of land was damaged and therefore, no loss in such a meager portion of land can be ascertained and assessed as even in this meager portion of land there was also no total loss. In these circumstances, we found no merit in the present complaint and same is liable to be dismissed.

8.       In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:                             Member      Member                President,

Dated: 25.01.2023.                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                            Redressal Commission, Sirsa.

JK