BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 76 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 01.04.2021.
Date of Decision : 24.07.2023.
Ram Kumar, aged about 56 years son of Sh. Megh Raj @ Megha resident of village Kheowali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Punjab National Bank, Sukhchain Branch, village Sukhchain, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
2. Oriental General Insurance Company Limited, Oriental House, A 25/27, Asaf Ali road, New Delhi- 110002 through its General Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
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 he is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 64 kanals i.e. 3.2 hectrares situated in village Kheowali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa which is mortgaged with op no.1 vide Kisan Credit Card account no. 1351008800009719. The complainant sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 in his above said land. It is further averred that on 31.07.2018 op no.1 deducted amount of Rs.4661.28 as insurance premium from the account of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 with op no.2 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna but policy was not delivered to him. That the average yield of the said crop remained quite below than the threshold yield and other farmers of village Kheowali received insurance claim from op no.2 in the month of May/ June, 2019 but complainant did not receive any claim from any of the ops despite his several requests and visits. That when complainant obtained details from op no.1 on 4.3.2021 and he was surprised to see that village of land of complainant was written Sukhchain instead of Khoewali and due to this reason he could not get the insurance claim and ops have committed gross negligence and deficiency in service towards the complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment to him. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that it is the liability of op no.2 to indemnify the loss of the complainant if any, because the crops of complainant has been insured with op no.2 on the request of complainant and op no.2 has charged insurance premium on account of insurance of crops of complainant. The answering op has not charged any penny for itself. It is further submitted that when answering op noticed that the name of the village of land has been uploaded as village Sukhchain instead of Kheowali, the answering op immediately made request to op no.2 for correction of the name of village. That as per police/ agreement duly executed and signed by answering op and op no.2, it is the condition that insurance company must verify the facts uploaded by the op no.1 over its portal and if any discrepancy in the name of the borrower, name of village or amount etc., then the insurance company would have informed the answering op within two months from the date of its initiation and shall get things corrected in the record. However, answering op itself informed the insurance company the said fact and insurance company has not noticed this fact within stipulated period. Moreover, with the best efforts of op no.1 the claim of complainant has been settled and as a result of which Rs.18,817.87 has been released to the complainant on account of insurance claim and same has been credited to his loan account. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.1 uploaded the name of village Sukhchain in place of Kheowali on the National Crop Insurance Portal wrongly and did not make any effort to rectify the mistake and to correct the name of village in the Portal before the closure of the portal. After the closure of the portal no correction can be made. It is further submitted that according to clause 17.2 of the revised operational guidelines of PMFBY, op no.2 is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant and bank is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 prayed for.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. detail of insurance provided by bank Ex.C1, statement of account Ex.C2, jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C3, certificate of bank Ex.C4 and report of Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare department, Sirsa Ex.C5.
6. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Virender Kumar, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R1, relevant clauses of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R2 to Ex.R7 and minutes of meeting Ex.R8.
7. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Amritpal Gupta, Branch Manager as Ex.R9. statement of account Ex.R10 and detail of farmer/ certificate of bank as Ex.R11.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
9. The complainant in order to prove loss to his cotton crop in agricultural land situated in village Kheowali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa has placed on file report of Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa as Ex.C5 according to which the average yield of cotton crop of village Kheowali in Kharif, 2018 was 242.39 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Odhan was 602.64 Kgs. per hectare. So, it is proved on record that as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss of cotton crop in village Kheowali and there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in kharif, 2018 season. It is proved on record that complainant is having his agricultural land in village Kheowali whereas op no.1 bank uploaded the village name of land of complainant on the portal as village Sukhchain instead of village Kheowali as is evident from the certificate of bank Ex.C4 and the op bank did not get corrected the above said mistake on time before the closure of the portal. The op no.2 insurance company on the basis of data uploaded on the portal i.e. of village Sukhchain has already paid insurance claim amount of Rs.18,817.87 to the complainant. However, the loss of the complainant is to be assessed as per loss of cotton crop of kharif, 2018 in village Kheowali. For calculation of loss a formula has been given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY which is as under:-
Threshold yield minus average yield X sum insured X area
_____________________________
Threshold yield.
10. The sum insured amount of cotton crop of kharif, 2018 was Rs.72,000/-. The complainant sown cotton crop in his 3.2 hectares of land. As such the complainant was entitled to receive claim amount of Rs.1,37,730/- for the loss of his cotton crop in kharif, 2018. Therefore, op no.1 bank is liable to pay the remaining claim amount of Rs.1,18,912/- to the complainant after deduction of the amount of Rs.18,817.87/- already paid to the complainant. In this regard, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula in a similar case titled as The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank now merged with Union Bank of India Versus Rupinder Singh and others Appeal No. 803 of 2022 decided on 11.01.2023 has held that “As per provision 17.2 of operational guidelines of PMFBY for difference of claim due to wrong information, if any, concerned bank/ intermediaries were responsible”. The Clause 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY stipulates that 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 (if any). The appeal filed by the bank in the above said case was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission. So, in the present case also, the op no.1 bank is liable to pay the remaining claim amount of Rs.1,18,912/- to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop in kharif, 2018 in village Kheowali, District Sirsa.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 bank to pay the above said claim amount of Rs.1,18,912/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.1,18,912/- from op no.1 bank alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op no.1 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.2 insurance company stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President
Dt. 24.07.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
