Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/557/2019

Dharamveer - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Tayal

18 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    557 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution: 27.12.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 18.05.2022.

 

Dharamveer s/o Shri Anant Ram, r/o village Mirzapur, Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                   Versus

 

1. Punjab National Bank, Village Jyotisar, District Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
2. Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture & FW, Government of Haryana, situated at Sector-7, Kurukshetra.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 4^th Floor, The Statement Plot No.149, Industrial Area, next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh-160002, through its M.D.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Mohit Tayal, Adv. for the complainant.

                   Shri Lovekesh Machhal, Advocate for OP No.1.

                   Shri Garv Bathla, Project Officer for OP No.2.

                   Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for OP No.3.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that complainant is permanent resident of above said address and having 9 acres of agriculture land in the said village. He was having its account with OP No.1 bearing Account No.1146008800000547. The Government of India promulgated a welfare scheme namely Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for the welfare of Indian farmer and under the said scheme, OPs No.1 & 3 deducted the premium on 31.07.2017 for the year 2017-18 for khariff (dhan/paddy) from his account. However, policy cover not issued till date to him. In the month of June-July 2017, he sowed paddy crop in his above mentioned 9 acres. There was heavy rains in the area during that period, due to which, the crops was destroyed and he duly informed the OPs in this regard and survey was conducted by the Agriculture Department, Kurukshetra in the presence of other OPs and estimate report was prepared. After aforesaid survey report, he approached to the OPs various times and requested to pay the compensation under PMFBY, but OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. District Level Monitoring Committee was constituted in the office of ADC under Chairmanship of ADC Shri Parth Gupta, IAS in Kurukshetra and in the said meeting, the OPs were also directed to settle his claim under the scheme in 20 days, but nothing had been done by the OPs in this regard till today, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, causing him mental agony, harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs before this Commission.

3.                On receipt of notice of complaint, all the OPs appeared and filed their respective written versions.

4.                The OP No.1, in its written statement raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action and jurisdiction. It is further stated that the complainant never came before this Commission with clean hands and concealed the true and material facts from this Commission. In fact, the true and material facts are OP No.1 has no role in the present complaint and it is the matter between the complainant and OP No.3. The OP No.1 timely deducted the Fasal Bima Premium from the KCC Account No.1146008800000547 of complainant and said premium had been remitted in the account of OP No.3, so question of deficiency in service upon the OP No.1 does not arise and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it with special costs.

5.                The OP No.2 filed its written statement, stating, the farmer did not give any intimation of damage crop, but in village Mirzapur, claim arised on the basis of average yield as per CCEs survey average yield found 2439.60 kg. per hectare, while threshold yield was 3232.44 kg. per hectare. Due to shortfall in yield, claim arised in the village Rs.17537.08 per hectare. Further this report was sent to insurance company for settlement of claim. Further, the farmer’s detail uploaded on Govt. Portal and amount premium is also deducted from the farmer KCC. It is admitted that claim of complainant had not settled till now.

6.                The OP No.3, in its written statement, pleading non-maintainability; jurisdiction; No Coverage of alleged loss; Object of scheme and role of insurance company; Coverage of Farmers; Coverage of crops; Coverage of Risks and Exclusions; General Exclusions; Not maintainable for want of jurisdiction; Non Limitation; Non submission of proof of loss or weather report; Limited Coverage as per scheme; Yield based claims are decided by Government; No Survey, no quantification of loss; Privity of contract; impleading of necessary party, complicated facts and law of contract; Not covering date of loss. It is further stated as per Operational Guidelines (OG), PMFBY scheme is compulsory for Loanee farmer with automatic deduction of farmer share of premium from their loan amount within specific cut of date. As per Operational Guidelines of PMFBY, insurance company insured/book under PMFBY scheme those farmers were details are available on Govt. Portal, as per Haryana Govt. Notification as well as letter from Joint Secretary Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department of agriculture & farmer welfare Krishi Bhawan New Delhi dated 12.07.2017. Hence in K’17 banks has uploaded details on GOI Portal premium was provided to ICICI Lombard after cut of date. In this case bank has uploaded farmer details on GOI portal after cut of date. Bank has remitted us premium on 23.08.2017 (after cut of date, cut of date was 16.08.2017) Rs.858153. Bank has provided us AML document to process refund the amount received after that. We refunded the premium amount Rs.858153 on 04.09.2019. Premium has been refunded to the bank, because the same was remitted to Lombard after the cut of date, as per detail given below:-

Bank	Branch	Season	Refunded amount	CMS No.	Date of refund to bank
Punjab National Bank	Jyotisar	Khariff 2017	858153	CMS1227113904	04.09.2019

 

                   So, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

7.                The complainant, in support of his case, tendered affidavit ExCW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence.

8.                On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 and closed it evidence. OP No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed its evidence. The OP No.3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A along with document Ex.R1 and closed its evidence.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file carefully.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant was permanent resident of above said address and having 9 acres of agriculture land in the said village. The complainant was having its account with OP No.1 bearing Account No.1146008800000547 and got insured his crop under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna after deducting the premium by OP No.1 and 3 on 31.07.2017 for the year 2017-18 for khariff (dhan/paddy) from his account. In the month of June-July 2017, the complainant sowed paddy crop in his above mentioned 9 acres. There was heavy rains in the area during that period, due to which, the crops was destroyed and the complainant duly informed the OPs in this regard and survey was conducted by the Agriculture Department, Kurukshetra in the presence of other OPs and estimate report was prepared. After aforesaid survey report, the complainant approached to the OPs various times and requested to pay the compensation under PMFBY, but OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. District Level Monitoring Committee was constituted in the office of ADC under Chairmanship of ADC Shri Parth Gupta, IAS in Kurukshetra and in the said meeting, the OPs were also directed to settle his claim under the scheme in 20 days, but nothing had been done by the OPs in this regard till today, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that OP No.1 has no role in the present complaint and it is the matter between the complainant and OP No.3. The OP No.1 timely deducted the Fasal Bima Premium from the KCC Account No.1146008800000547 of complainant and said premium had been remitted in the account of OP No.3, so question of deficiency in service upon the OP No.1 does not arise and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

12.              Authorized Representative for OP No.2 has argued that the farmer did not give any intimation of damage crop, but in village Mirzapur, claim arised on the basis of average yield as per CCEs survey average yield found 2439.60 kg. per hectare, while threshold yield was 3232.44 kg. per hectare. Due to shortfall in yield, claim arised in the village Rs.17537.08 per hectare. Further this report was sent to insurance company for settlement of claim. The farmer’s detail uploaded on Govt. Portal and amount premium is also deducted from the farmer KCC. It is admitted that claim of complainant had not settled till now.

13.              Learned counsel for the OP No.3 has argued that as per Operational Guidelines of PMFBY, insurance company insured/book under PMFBY scheme those farmers were details are available on Govt. Portal, as per Haryana Govt. Notification as well as letter from Joint Secretary Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department of agriculture & farmer welfare Krishi Bhawan New Delhi dated 12.07.2017. Hence in K’17 banks has uploaded details on GOI Portal premium was provided to ICICI Lombard after cut of date. In this case bank has uploaded farmer details on GOI portal after cut of date. Bank has remitted us premium on 23.08.2017 (after cut of date, cut of date was 16.08.2017) Rs.858153. Bank has provided us AML document to process refund the amount received after that. It refunded the premium amount Rs.858153 on 04.09.2019. Premium has been refunded to the bank, because the same was remitted to Lombard after the cut of date, as such, there is no deficiency on its part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against with costs. In order to support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case law titled Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & Anr. Vs. Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & Anr., 2015 (4) CLT 545 (NC).

14.              After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the moot question before this Commission is, whether the OPs committed any act of deficiency in service by not releasing the claim amount to the complainant, causing mental agony, harassment and financial loss to the complainant, making him entitled to the relief, as claimed or to what extent and against whom?

15.              There is no dispute that the complainant was an agriculturist of village Mirzapur, holding a KCC account with OP No.1 bank. There is also no dispute that a sum of Rs.3864/- was deducted by OP No.1 on 31.07.2017 from the account of complainant, on account of premium for ‘PMFBY’ of Khariff crop for the season of 2017-18 and remitted the same to OP No.3 insurance company. It is further admitted fact on the record that there was loss of the crop in village Mirzapur during khariff 2017-18, as a result of which, complaints were lodged with concerned authorities by the farmers concerned, and as a result of which, team of the officials of agriculture department visited the said village and assessed average yield and threshold yield, vide “Village wise Tabulation sheet of sum insured as claim under PMFBY for Kharif 2017-18, District Kurukshetra” Ex.C-4. According to that sheet Ex.C-4, claim of Rs.17537.08 per hectare has been recommended for Khariff crop of season 2017-18 qua village Mirzapur (village of complainant). So, from the above report Ex.C-4, it is proved on record that there was loss to the khariff crop in the season 2017-18 in village Mirzapur and as such, complainant, who was also having his agricultural land in the said village, as mentioned in jamabandi Ex.C-5 and sown paddy crop, he is also entitled to claim amount, as per PMFBY for the loss suffered by him due to natural calamities, during that season. But the OP No.3 insurance company refused to pay the claim to the complainant, on the ground that OP No.1 bank remitted the premium of Rs.8,58,153/- relating to the concerned farmers on 23.08.2017 i.e. after cut of date 16.08.2017 and that’s why the same was refunded back to the OP No.1 on 04.09.2019. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 has contended that it timely deducted the Fasal Bima Premium from the bank accounts of complainant & others and remitted Rs.858153/- to the OP No.3 qua group insurance coverage policy of crop of khariff for the season 2017-18 in August 2017, but the OP No.3 refunded back to it the said amount on 04.09.2019 i.e. after more than two years of its remittance to OP No.3, by the OP No.1.

16.              To support his contentions, firstly, the OP No.1 produced Inter-Office letter dated 21.03.2020 on the case file as Ex.R-4, wherein, it was mentioned that OP No.1 remitted Rs.858153/- on 23.8.2017 to the OP No.3, but it retuned the same on 04.09.2019. In this regard, the OP No.1 wrote to OP No.3 in this regard on 09.09.2019, 16.09.2019, 26.9.2019 and on 27.11.2019 to provide the details of claim and accept the premium. On 28.11.2019, OP No.1 remitted the premium amount to the OP No.3, but it returned the same on 29.11.2019. Again OP No.1, on 12.12.2019 remitted the premium amount to the OP No.3, but it returned the same on 16.12.2019. On 28.01.2020, the OP No.1 again remitted the premium amount to the OP No.3, but it returned the same on the same day. The OP No.1, on 30.01.2020, again remitted the premium amount to the OP No.3, but it returned the same on 03.02.2020. On 30.01.2020, OP No.1 wrote to SLBC to intervene into the matter and instruct the OP No.3 to settle the claims of the farmers.

17.              The OP No.1 further produced on the case file Minutes of the 4^th Meeting of State Level Grievance Committee (SLGC) under the Chairmanship of Shri Vijay Singh Dahiya, IAS, Director General, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Haryana, held on 14.01.2021 at 11:00 AM” (this document was also produced by the OP No.3 as Ex.R-2) and drawn attention of this Commission towards its Clause No.3 “Premium submitted by Bank to Insurance Company after cut-off date” and contended that for the sake of discussion, if contention of the OP No.3 that “the OP No.1 had remitted the premium qua the policy in question on 23.08.2017 instead of cut of date 16.08.2017 i.e. 6 days late”, even then, as per above Clause No.3 of said Minutes of Meeting Ex.R-2, the insurance company i.e. OP No.3 was directed, in that meeting, to pay the claim amount to the farmers, as per provisions and the bank i.e. OP No.1 was directed to pay the saving interest for delayed period of remitting the premium, to the insurance company, and as such, as per above Minutes of Meeting Ex.R-2, OP No.3 is liable to pay the claim amount, if any to the complainant and OP No.1 is liable to pay the saving interest for delay period of six days on the amount of Rs.858153/- to the OP No.3 insurance company, if any.

18.              So, till now, from the submissions of both the parties and after perusing the document Ex.R-4 and MOM Ex.R-2, we found that after receiving the premium amount qua PMFBY by the OP No.3 from OP No.1, OP No.3 returned the same to OP No.1 after more than two years from the date of receiving by it, on the ground, it remitted the premium after cut-off date and it was the OP No.1, who made various efforts time and again to remit the premium of the farmers qua the PMFBY to the OP No.3 enabling the OP No.3 to accept the same, in order to insure the khariff crop of the farmers concerned for the season 2017-18, but every time, OP No.3 remained adamant, who neither accepted the same nor timely returned the same to the OP No.1 and lastly, having no other option, the OP No.1 credited the said amount in the accounts of the concerned farmers including complainant also and the fact of refunded back the premium amount was also not denied by learned counsel for the complainant also. The above act and conduct of OP No.3 amounts to gross deficiency in service on its part.

19.              For the sake of discussion if allegations of the OP No.3 to the effect that “OP No.1 had remitted to it the premium of Rs.858153/- qua PMFBY on 23.08.2017 instead of cut of date 16.08.2017”, even then, it was incumbent upon the OP No.3 not to accept the same and immediately refunded back the same to the OP No.1 and in that eventuality, we can hold the OP No.1 deficient one for not timely remitting the premium amount to OP No.3 and make it responsible to pay the claim amount to the farmers concerned including complainant, as per PMFBY, for its deficiency in service. But in fact, the OP No.3 did not do so and accepted the said premium amount without any objection, for a long period of more than two years, and when it came to know about crop loss suffered by the farmers under localized villages and as such, these farmers concerned including complainant could ask to OP No.3 for the claim under PMFBY, for the loss suffered by them, then in order to escape itself from paying the claim amount to the farmers concerned, the OP No.3 arbitrarily and illegally refunded back the said premium amount to the OP No.1 after a long period of more than two years, which not only an act of deficiency in service, rather, an act of unfair trade practice also. In these given facts and circumstances of this case, the OP No.3 only is found liable to pay the claim amount for the damages to the crop of complainant for Kharif 2017-18 season and OP No.1 is not found responsible in this regard.

20.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? From “Village wise Tabulation sheet of sum insured as claim under PMFBY for Kharif 2017-18, District Kurukshetra” Ex.C4, it is evident that claim of Rs.17537.08 per hectare has been recommended for Khariff 2017-18 qua village Mirzapur (village of complainant) by the concerned Agriculture Department. Since as per jama-bandhi record Ex.C-5, the complainant had sown paddy crop in 9 acres of land (which is also not denied by the OPs No.1 & 2 respectively), therefore, the claim amount, to be paid to the complainant, is as under:

                   Claim amount                =       Rs.17537.08/- per hectare

                   1 Hectare                       =       2.47 acre.

                   Rs.17537.08 / 2.47                  =       Rs.7100.03 per acre

                   Rs.7100.03 x 9 acres     =       Rs.63,900/-

         

21.              So, in view of above calculation, the complainant is entitled to receive the total claim amount of Rs.63,900/-, from the OP No.3, for the loss suffered by him in 9 acres of his land. So far as, the complaint filed against OPs No.1 & 2 are concerned; from the perusal of entire record, we found that no deficiency in service is proved against them, therefore, complaint filed against them, is liable to be dismissed. The case law, produced by learned counsel for the OP No.3, is not disputed, but the same is not applicable to the case in hand, being rested on different footings.

22.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OP No.3, and dismiss the same against OPs No.1 & 2. We direct the OP No.3 to make the payment of Rs.63,900/-, to the complainant alongwith interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of filing the present complaint, by the complainant i.e. 27.12.2019, till its actual realization. The OP No.3 is also directed to pay Rs.15,000/-, to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.3, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OP No.3 is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OP No.3. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Prounced:

Dated:18.05.2022.

 

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.