Haryana

Karnal

CC/530/2019

Jaswant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab And Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Rajnish Batra

17 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 530 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.19.08.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:17.03.2022

 

Jaswant Singh son of Shri Surjit Singh, resident of Dera Pandorian, Assandh, District Karnal. (aged about 65 years) Aadhaar no.4078 1469 7475. Mobile no.9996051722.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Punjab and Sind Bank, branch Assandh, District Karnal through its Manager.

2.     SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO no.388, 389, 1^st floor, Karan Commercial Complex, old Mughal Canal, near guru Hari Kishan School, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

3.     Deputy Director Agriculture, office at near Police Station Sadar Karnal, opposite Mahatma Gandhi Chowk, Karnal.

4.     Block Agriculture Officer, Assandh, District Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

           

 Argued by: Shri Rajnish Batra, counsel for complainant.

                    OP no.1 exparte.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for OP no.2.

                    Shri Surinder Kumar, Project Officer on behalf

                    Of OP no.3 and 4.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

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 parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is agriculturist by profession and having his bank account no.02031600001798 with OP no.1. He had obtained Fasal Bima and on account of availing this facility, the OP no.1 bank has deducted the insurance premium of Rs.4335.25 from the account of complainant on 30.07.2018 for crop insurance under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. On 26.09.2018, the complainant gave the information to Deputy Director, Agriculture Karnal that his crop has been damaged due to overflow of water. On the application of complainant bearing no.11078, a team was formed by the OP no.3, who inspected the fields of the complainant on 15.10.2018, and prepared the report in which they shown that the crop of the complainant damaged 70% in 8 acres. Thereafter, complainant visited so many times to the office of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Karnal and his bank OP no.1 and requested for making the payment of claim of damaged crop of the complainant, but nothing was done. On 04.04.2019, complainant moved an application before The Deputy Director, Karnal and stated that his claim till today has not been received and requested for getting the said claim amount. On 07.06.2019, complainant again moved an application to the M.L.A Assandh in this regard, but it also did not yield any result. It is further averred that on this application, OP no.4 gave his report on 11.06.2019, in which he stated that complainant moved an application on 07.06.2019, and he verified the record from DDA office, Karnal and found that farmer of survey no.11078, has not any insurance regarding his crop. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  As per crop insurance policy, complainant is entitled to Rs.29,750/- per acre and as such, complainant is entitled to amount of damaged crop to the tune of 70% of 8 acres of land, which comes to Rs.1,66,000/-. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay the compensation of damages crop of the land of the complainant i.e. Rs.1,66,600/- alongwith interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.22000/-as  litigation costs.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 01.10.2019 passed by this Commission.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant never shared his policy and application number with OP no.2. Hence, OP no.2 insurance company not able to trace the claim or any grievance for such particular’s allegations. The contentions of prayer clause are hereby wrong and denied and complainant is not liable for Rs.1,66,000/- alongwith interest and Rs.72,000/- for compensation and cost. It is further pleaded that crop insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, which operates area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as in insurance unit. For all major crops, insurance unit is Gram Panchayat and for minor crops, insurance unit is Taluk. It is further pleaded that Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare is fixed for every insurance unit. Actual yield (AY) kilogram/hectare of an insurance unit is calculated by the government taking samples form respective insurance unit at the time of harvesting of the crop through crop cutting experiments (CCEs) which are conducted by State Government. All the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claims is furnished by the government and accordingly the insurance company only calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Provision of operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna vide clause XI: Assessment of loss/shortfall in yield, sub clause 10: Assessment of Claims (Wide Spread Calamities)

“If ‘Actual Yield’ (AY) per hectare of insured crop for the insurance unit (calculated on basis of requisite number of CCEs) in insured season, falls short of specified “Threshold Yield” (TY), all insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in yield of similar magnitude. PMFBY seeks to provide coverage against such contingency.

‘Claim’ shall be calculated as per the following formula:

(Threshold Yield- Actual Yield)

Threshold yield                  X Sum insured.

 

It is further pleaded that in the present case, in the absence of application number, OP no.2 is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 and 4 in their written version stated that the after receiving the information regarding the loss of the crop of complainant due to overflow water, OP no.3 inspected the fields of complainant on 15.10.2018 and prepared the report in which they shown that the crop of complainant damaged 70% in 8 acres. It is further submitted that on 04.04.2019, the complainant moved an application before the Deputy Director, Karnal and stated that his claim till today has not been received and requested for getting the said claim amount. Thereafter, OP no.3 moved an application to OP no.2, after that OP  no.2 denied the claim and said that complainant not insured on Government portal of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. As per operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna clause no.XVIV (4) (e), if case claim have arisen during crop season then respective bank and its branches would be responsible to make payment of the admissible claims to loanee farmers who were deprived from insurance cover to their crops.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bank statement having entry of deduction of premium Ex.C1, copy of report of agriculture department Ex.C2, application to Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal on 04.04.2019 Ex.C3, application to MLA Assandh dated 07.06.2019 and report thereon dated 11.06.2019 Ex.C4, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 16.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Arvind Singh Naruka Ex.RW1/A, operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 14.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

8.             OP no.3 and 4 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Project Officer, Ex.OP3/A, guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.OP1, copy of email dated 1.10.2019 Ex.OP2, survey report mark-A and closed the evidence on 14.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

9.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

10.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that he has obtained a kisan cash credit limit from OP no.1 and for the security of repayment of the loan obtained by him, OP no.1 has provided crop insurance to him under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna through the OP no.2. OP no.1 had been debiting the insurance premium from the account of the complainant for the insurance of crop and the said amount was transferred in the account of OP no.2. He further argued that the crop of the complainant was badly damaged. Complainant moved an application before the Agriculture Department for inspection of his damaged crop. Agriculture Department and insurance company surveyed the damaged crop of the complainant. Insurance company i.e. OP no.2 has refused to pay the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground that there is no insurance with OP no.2. As per report of the Agriculture, complainant has a loss to the extent of 70% in eight acres of land. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

11.           OP no.1 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte.

12.           Per contra, learned counsel of OP no.2 argued that Threshold Yield (TY) Kilogram/Hectare is fixed for every insurance unit. Actual Yield (AY) Kilogram/Hectare of an insurance unit is calculated by the government taking samples from respective insurance unit at the time of harvesting of the crop through crop cutting Experiments (CCEs) which are conducted by the State Government. He further argued that all the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claim is furnished by the government and accordingly the insurance company only calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. He further argued that complainant never shared the policy and application number and in the absence of application number, OP no.2 was unabled to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 13.          OP no.3 and 4 submitted that  the crop of the complainant was damaged due to overflow water.  OP no.3 inspected the fields of complainant on 15.10.2018 and prepared the report in which they shown that the crop of complainant damaged 70% in 8 acres.

14.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land in Dera Pandorian, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal and had obtained crop loan from OP no.1. OP no.1 (bank) had deducted premium amounts for insurance of crop on behalf of OP no.2 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, as is evident from copy of bank passbook of complainant as Ex.C1. The OP no.2 insurance company has also not denied the fact that it did not receive any premium amount for insuring the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. So, it is duly proved on record that OP no.2 received insurance premium amount of Rs.11078/- from banker of complainant i.e. OP no.1 on behalf of complainant for insuring the paddy crop of complainant of kharif, 2018.

15.           In so far as loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 is concerned, the complainant has specifically stated that in Kharif, 2018 season his crop in 8 acres was damaged due to water logging due to heavy rain and he moved an application to the agriculture department with regard to loss of crop. He has also stated that agriculture department and insurance company inspected/surveyed his damaged crop but insurance company denied to pay any compensation/claim to him while saying that complainant never shared the policy number and application number with the OP no.2. The complainant in order to prove damage to his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018 has also placed on record copy of inspection report Ex.C2, prepared by agricultural department and representative of insurance company which reveals that on 15.10.2018 agriculture department and representative of insurance company inspected the field of complainant in his presence and found that his paddy crop in 8 acres of land was damaged due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report Ex.C2 that paddy crop of complainant in 8 acre of land in Dera Pandorian, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal was damaged and he suffered loss on account of damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The OP no.2 has not paid claim amount to the complainant on the ground that the complainant never shared the policy and application number and in the absence of application number, OP no.2 is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant. In this regard, we are of the considered view that the OP no.2 cannot take the advantage of this contention, when the representative of the OP is present at the time of survey of the field of the complainant. The OP no.3 has also placed on file copy of its email dated 1.10.2019 Ex.OP2 according to which they checked the details of the farmer in their data, the details of the farmer is not found on the GOI portal. In these circumstances, in the present case, the insurance company OP no.2 which has retained the premium amount of complainant for insuring paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 and has not returned the premium amount to bank in time, is liable to pay insurance claim for the damage of crop to the complainant. Whereas complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of OP no.2 inspected the field of complainant and confirmed about the loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. Therefore, OP no.2 cannot go back and cannot avoid its liability when its representative has already found loss to the crop of complainant.  So, the insurance company OP no.2 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.

 16.          Learned counsel for OP no.2 has contended that complainant never shared policy and application number and in the absence of application number, insurance company is unable to trace any information regarding the claim of complainant. As per clause 24.2 of guidelines of PMFBY regarding collection of proposal and premium from farmers according to which in case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/ branch in case of compulsory farmer’s coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting. But as already discussed, there is nothing on file to prove the said plea of OP no.2 as OP no.2 has not led any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that there is any misreporting on behalf of bank for which OP no.1 bank can be held liable. Furthermore, there is nothing on file to prove that insurance company OP no.2 verified the data of the complainant as provided by the bank or found any misreporting on the part of OP no.1  bank. So, the insurance company OP no.2 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, no liability of OPs no.1, 3 and 4 is made out.

17.           Now, we observe the entitlement of the complainant regarding claim amount for the damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant had sown paddy crop in 8 acres of land and as per Agriculture report Ex.C2, complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 70% of his crop in his above said land.  During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has also placed on record, an information regarding Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for farmers. On perusal of the same, it reveals that in the year 2018, the farmers were initiated approximately amount of Rs.29,750/- per acre for their paddy crop and as such complainant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.20825/- per acre (after deduction of 30% amount from 29,750/-) and for his 8 (eight) acres of land, thus he is entitled to total amount of Rs.1,66,600/- as claim amount from OP no.2 insurance company, alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses..

18.           In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint qua OP no.2 and direct OP no.2 to pay the above said amount of Rs.1,66,600/- alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of present complaint till its actual realization. We further direct OP no.2 to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the comsplainant. However, complaint against OP no.1, 3 and 4 stands dismissed.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Dated:17.03.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)            

                     Member