Haryana

Ambala

CC/72/2020

Baldev Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB - Opp.Party(s)

26 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                           Complaint case no.         : 72 of 2020.

                                                          Date of Institution           : 02.03.2020.

                                                          Date of decision     : 26.08.2022.

         

Baldev Raj son of Sh. Balak Ram, aged 46 years, R/o Village Barouli, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala.

 

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. The Punjab National Bank, Branch Chhapra Kathgarh, Ambala, through its Branch Manager.
2. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Ambala.

                                                                              ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Shubham Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Ms. Upma Bhalla, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                   Shri Kulbir Singh, Authorized representative for the OP No.2.         

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

To pay Rs.1,50,000/-, as claim for the 100% loss of the paddy crop for the year 2018 under the PMFBY Scheme, to the complainant along with interest, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and also cost of litigation.  

                                                                   OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit

2.           Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and maintaining Account No.1352008800009266 with the OP No.1, which is also attached with his KCC. He has been harvesting his fields situated at village Barouli, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala. There was a Central Govt. Scheme for the insurance of agricultural crops under the name of "Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna", under which the complainant opted for the insurance of the crops in the year 2016 through OP No.1 bank. He has been regularly paying annual premium for Insurance of the crops in his field, which was being deducted from his account by OP No.1. The complainant has paid Rs.1442/- on 28.7.2016, Rs.952/- on 6.3.2017, Rs.1649/- on 25.7.2017, Rs.1690.50 on 30.7.2018 respectively, for paddy crop of season 2018, Rs.1147.70p on 11.12.2018. In the season of cutting the Paddy crop i.e. in month of October November 2018, the crop standing in the land of complainant measuring 2 acres 6 kanal, situated in Village Barouli, Distt. Ambala was 100% damaged/destroyed due to the unseasonal rain and hailstorm. Thereafter, the complainant applied for compensation for his 100% damaged crop under the above said scheme i.e. PMFBY, but he was not paid anything, by the OPs. The complainant inquired the matter, by way moving an application under RTI Act, 2005, to apprise him as to why his claim has not been paid and in response thereto, it was informed by the OPs that his claim has been rejected on the ground that his Aadhar Card has not been generated under PMFBY scheme. For the last several years, the OPs have been collecting premium under PMFBY scheme for the insurance of crops sown in the fields of the complainant, which was being deducted through his account maintained with OP No.1 bank, yet, his rightful claim has been rejected on a lame excuse. Legal notice dated 20.07.2019 served upon the OPs also did not yield any result. By not paying the claim amount, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, locus standi, bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties and cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that the Government had launched the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana Scheme in the year 2016. As per the Scheme and Guidelines issued from time to time, it was mandatory for the Loanee farmers to take the benefit of the PMFBY and to get insured his crops under this scheme. However, the duty of OP No.1 was to upload the data/details of the farmer and crop on the PMFBY portal as provided by the farmer and to deduct the premium on the given date, every six months, as per the crop sown and to credit the same in the account of the Insurance Company. Then, if the crops are damaged due to unforeseen circumstances the claim is to be processed or disbursed by the Agriculture Department or the Insurance company. In the present case, OP No.1 had deducted the premium for an amount of Rs.1690.50 on 30.07.2018 and Rs.1147.70 on 11.12.2018 from the account of the complainant which was mandatory as per guidelines issued from time to time and as per Notification issued by the Government of Haryana bearing memo no. 4332 dated 30.03.2018, and, credited the  same  in the account of  the   SBI General Insurance Company.

The claim is to be processed and disbursed by SBI General Insurance Company and not by OP No.1. The complainant in his RTI Application dated 30.05.2019 asked for the ID Application Number for premium amount deducted and the details of the portal on which it was entered. Therefore, OP No.1 in its reply to the said application gave him the ID application number generated for the premium deducted for an amount of Rs.1147/-. The ID application number for the premium deducted for an amount of Rs.1690/- was not generated as the complainant himself had not submitted his aadhar card on time which was mandatory for the generation of the ID application number and after several reminders/requests the complainant submitted his aadhar card on 20.10.2018 and only then the ID application number for the premium of Rs.1147/- was generated. The complainant has not placed on file any record which shows that he had ever applied to the insurance company for the issuance of claim/compensation or nor has given any intimation regarding the damaged crop nor has placed on record any repudiation letter or any document for rejection of the claim.It is the responsibility of the concerned Insurance Companies to collect/obtain any documentation of the insured farmers (both loanee and non-loanee) from the bank/financial institutions/ intermediaries/ agents if necessary for verification/acceptance of risk and also to facilitate the banks/ financial institutions/ intermediaries/ agents to submit/upload all requisite documents/information on the National Crop Insurance Portal within timelines. It is also the duty of the Insurance Companies to reconcile the details of individual insured farmers uploaded on the Portal with the premium/consolidated declaration received from each branch/nodal bank within the stipulated date and any deficiency mismatch may be reported to concerned bank branch/nodal bank. The Bank Branch/Nodal Bank should further send/upload the requisite information in respect of such farmers for whom clarification has been sought, immediately within 7 days. A meeting was held between the Director General, Agriculture and farmer’s welfare and Insurance Companies and the Banks to resolve the pending disputes of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. As per the minutes of meeting held on 02.07.2019 under the chairmanship of Sh. Ajit Bala Ji Joshi, Director General Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana, it was decided that the cases where farmers record mismatch and premium paid by banks to insurance company on time. Whereas insurance company has not returned premium to bank in time, then the Insurance Company will pay the claim to farmers as per farmer record; Cases where banks have not entered the data on portal, but premium deposited to insurance company in time and premium not returned to bank by the insurance company in time, then insurance company has to pay the claim. Thus, it is the insurance company who has received the premium and has not returned the same and is liable to pay compensation, if any, to the complainant. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the answering OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special and heavy costs.

4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action and time barred etc.  On merits, it is stated that inundation application of the complainant received by its office on 12.10.2018 was forwarded to the Insurance Company for survey of the damage. Answering OP is just a channel of liaising agency between farmers, Banks and the Insurance Company(ies). Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the answering OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Shri Ravinder Choudhary, Sr. Manager of OP No.1 Bank-Punjab National Bank, Branch Chhapra Kathgarh, Ambala as Annexure OP1/A  alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Authorized representative for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Girish Nagpal, Deputy Director of OP No.2- Agriculture Department, Ambala as Annexure OP2/A and closed the evidence of the OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, learned counsel for the OP No.1 and authorized representative for the OP No.2 and carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not paying the claim, to the complainant, which arouse due to damage of his paddy crop, despite the fact that he had paid insurance premium amount to the OPs, they have committed deficiency in service, which has caused financial loss to the complainant. 
8.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 submitted that since it was the SBI General Insurance Company which was to pay compensation to the complainant, after assessment of the loss suffered by him on account of his alleged damaged crop, as such, under those circumstances, the OP No.1 and 2 cannot be held liable for deficiency in service. They further submitted that since the complainant failed to implead SBI General Insurance Company as necessary party therefore this complaint should be dismissed on this ground alone.
9.           The only moot question which falls for consideration is, as to who is under obligation to pay compensation to the complainant for the alleged loss of paddy crop suffered by him. In the present case, it has not been disputed by the complainant that the premium amount in respect of his insured crop, under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, deducted by OP No.1 from his account, had been credited in the account of the SBI General Insurance Company. At the time of arguments, Counsel for OP No.1, while relying upon  the minutes of the meeting held on 2.7.2019 under the Chairmanship of Director General, Agricultural Department, Haryana,  has contended that it was clearly held in the said meeting that the cases wherein the banks had not entered the data on portal but the premium is deposited with the Insurance Company in time and the same has not been not returned by the Insurance Company, then the Insurance Company would have to pay the insurance claim. Similarly, learned counsel for OP No.2 also contended with vehemence that the inundation application of the complainant was received by the office of OP No.2 on 12.10.2018 and the same was forwarded to the insurance company- SBI General Insurance Company for survey of the damage caused to the crops of the complainant and therefore the role of OP No.2 is limited and it was the insurance company- SBI General Insurance Company which was to indemnify the complainant for the said loss allegedly suffered by him.
10.           It is signification to mention here that in the written statements filed by the OPs, a specific objection with regard to non-impleading of the SBI Insurance Company by the complainant, in this consumer complaint, has been taken. Even at the time of arguments also, it has been strongly contended by learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 that because the insurance company-SBI General Insurance Company who was liable to make payment of compensation to the complainant, after assessment of loss suffered by him, has not been made a  necessary party, as such in the absence of the said insurance company, this complaint needs to be dismissed being bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
11.           It is submitted here that we have  also gone through the minutes of the meeting held on 2.7.2019, under the Chairmanship of Director General, Agricultural Department, Haryana,  placed on record by OP No.1 as Annexure OP1/1 and found that it has been clearly held in the said meeting that the cases wherein some record of the farmers is mismatched, yet,  the premium is deposited by the bank concerned with the Insurance Company in time and the same has not been returned by the Insurance Company, then the Insurance Company would have to pay the insurance claim. Relevant part of the said document Annexure OP1/1  is reproduced hereunder:-

 

“…Cases where farmers record mismatch and premium paid by banks to insurance company on time. Whereas insurance company not return premium to bank in time, Insurance Company will pay the claim to farmers as per farmer record….”

 

12.           The Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana also in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,  Vs. Richpal Singh and another, First Appeal No.   129 of 2020, decided on  27.02.2020, while relying upon the aforesaid minutes of the meeting held on 2.7.2019, under the Chairmanship of Director General, Agricultural Department, Haryana,  held that it is the insurance company who is under legal obligation under the "Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna", to make payment of compensation to the insured for the damaged crops. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“…….8.      It has come on record that in the meeting held on 2.7.2019 under the Chairmanship of Director General, Agricultural Department, Haryana, it was held that the case wherein banks had not entered the data on portal but the premium deposited with Insurance Company in time and the same not returned by the Insurance Company in time then the Insurance Company would have to pay the insurance claim. As per affidavit (Annexure CW-2/A) of Ram Sarup, brother of the complainant, he had taken KCC loan on his agricultural land situated in Village Jhalnia and premium of Rs.2,827/- was deducted from his account on 31.7.2017 for insuring Kharif crop of 2017 under PMFBY and in the said land, he had cultivated cotton crop, which was also damaged and on account of the same, he had received Rs.69,457/- on 14.6.2018 by way of insurance claim. However, no amount of insurance claim was credited in the account of the complainant for the damage of his insured cotton crop for the year Kharif 2017.

9.      In view of the above, no fault can be found with the order passed by learned District Consumer Forum, whereby, it was held that the cotton crop belonging to the complainant for the year Kharif 2017 was damaged in Village Jhalnia and compensation was required to be disbursed by the Insurance Company for damage of the insured cotton crop…..”

 

13.           Thus, from the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it has  been proved that the impleading of Insurance  Company i.e. SBI General Insurance Company, with which the said crops of the complainant were insured under "Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna", was very much necessary but the complainant has failed to implead it as necessary party to the complaint.  The complainant was having number of opportunities during pendency of this complaint, to move application for impleading the SBI General Insurance Company as necessary party, especially, when specific objection of non-impleading thereof was taken by OP No.1 in its written version, but even then he failed to do so. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that this complaint is bad for non-joinder of SBI General Insurance as necessary party, for which, this Commission is left with no alternative than to dismiss this complaint. Resultantly, this complaint is dismissed being bad for non-joinder of necessary party, with no order as to cost. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 26.08.2022.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President