Haryana

Karnal

CC/509/2019

Pala Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab And Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Sharma

30 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 509 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.07.08.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:30.09.2022

 

Pala Ram (age 67 years) son of Shri Jeet Singh, resident of village Manjura, District Karnal, Aadhaar card no. 6111 1054 1926.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch at Manjura, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

2.     SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., First floor, B.D. International, SCO 388-389, Karan Commercial Complex, old Mughal Canal, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

3.     Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Haryana, Karnal through its Deputy Director.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Nikhil Goel, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri S.S.Bajwa, counsel for the OP no.1.

Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for OP no.2.

Shri Surender Project Officer, on behalf of OP no.3.

 

                    (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 an agriculturists and he is owner in possession of agriculture land measuring three acres situated in village Manjura, District Karnal. The complainant is the account holder of the OP no.1, vide account no.06011600001040 and is also having Kisan Credit Card. The complainant has also taken insurance policy under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from OP no.2 through the OP no.1. OP no.1 has deducted the premium of Rs.1323/- on 23.07.2018 from the account of complainant for the insurance of crop for the year kharif, 2018. In the season of kharif, 2018 the crop spread over the land measuring three acres, got destroyed due to the natural disaster (heavy rain). The complainant immediately informed the Agriculture Department regarding the said damages of crop and accordingly the official of the agriculture department as well as the officials of insurance company got surveyed the damaged crop. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs several times and requested for disbursement of the insurance claim in favour of complainant but they flatly refused to disburse the same by alleging that the OPs have not uploaded the name of the complainant in their portal, the place of the crop of complainant mentioned as village Balu instead of village Manjura, District Karnal. OP no.1 deducted the premium twice from the account of the complainant in a year. The OP no.1 committed mistake in filing of the GOI portal.  In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. 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.1,00,000/-and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the OP no.1 bank has deducted the premium from the account of the complainant of Rs.1323/-dated 23.07.2018 from his loan account for paying the crop insurance premium of crop and an amount of Rs.1056430.20 as consolidated amount inclusive of premium of complainant was paid by the OP no.1 to the OP no.2, vide UTR no.PS1BH18212120755 dated 31.07.2018 which was duly credited in the account no.34089087089 of OP no.2 i.e. insurance company except this OP no.1 had no role to play in the present complaint. So far as the alleged damaged to the crop of complainant is concerned the liability, if any, to pay the compensation for the same is that of OP no.2 to which the premium was paid by the OP no.1. OP no.1 had acted as per instructions of the Government of India and as per guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna issued by the Department of Agriculture Cooperation and Farmer Welfare, New Delhi. No assurance was given by OP no.1 to the complainant that benefit under the PMFBY will be released to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 because OP no.1 deposited the crop insurance premium to the complainant in time to the OP no.2, so liability to pay the compensation to the complainant is of OP no.2. It is further pleaded that all date has been put manually on the portal of insurance company. Crops sowing village code was selected by drop down list. All the date which is manually feeded on the portal of the insurance company is correct. It is further pleaded that the survey made by the concerned agriculture department and also by OP no.2 on time when the crop was effected by rain, inspite of that, insurance company refused to pay compensation to the complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant never shared policy and application number with insurance company. Hence, insurance company not able to trace the farmer details as per given account number. 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 is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 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 in its reply stated that complainant immediately informed Agriculture Department regarding the said damages of crop and accordingly the officials of the agriculture department as well as insurance company got surveyed the damaged crop, which it has been clarified that three acres of land of complainant has been damaged due to water. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no.1 bank because farmer land was insured on the GOI portal village Balu instead of village Manujra. As per the operational guideline of PMFBY clause no.XVII (2) at that time, if substantial misreporting by bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concern bank only shall be liable for such misreporting.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of letter dated 10.06.2019 Ex.C2, copy of bank passbook Ex.C3, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C4, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2008-2009 Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 24.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Manish, Branch Manager Ex.OPW1/A, copy of statement of loan account Ex.OP1, coy of insurance premium RTGS enquiry Ex.OP2, copy of minutes of meeting held on 02.07.2019 Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 19.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.  

8.             OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nishant Gera, Assistant Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of insurance acknowledgement receipt Ex.R1, copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R2, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R3, copy of screen shot Ex.R4, copy of tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY for kharif 2018 Ex.R5, copy of blockwise average yield and threshold yield Ex.R6 and closed the evidence on 18.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

9.             OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Project Officer Ex.OP3/A, copy of survey report Ex.OP3/1, copy of insurance company reply dated 10.06.2019 regarding crop claim for loss during kharif-2018-2019 Ex.OP3/2 and closed the evidence on 19.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

10.           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.

11.           Learned counsel of complainant, while reiterating the contents of complainant, has vehemently argued that complainant has obtained cash credit limit for agriculture/loan from the OP no.1 under scheme of cash credit agriculture and for the purpose of loan. Complainant had mortgaged his agriculture land in favour of OP no.1 and OP no.1 has provided crop insurance, under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna through the OP no.2 and OP no.1 had debiting the insurance premium from the account of the complainant from time to time for the insurance of crop and the said amount was transferred in the account of OP no.2. He further argued that the complainant had sown paddy crop in his three acres of land in the month of June/July, 2018 but due to heavy rainfall, the crop was badly damaged and thereafter, complainant approached the OPs as well as Deputy Director Agriculture and reported the whole incident. Officials of the Deputy Director Agriculture visited at the site and inspected the damaged crop of the complainant and found damaged to the extent of 40% in three acre of land. The complainant requested the OPs several times to make the payment of compensation but they failed to pay the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

12.           Per-contra, learned counsel of OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that after deduction of premium amount, under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 had remitted premium in the account of insurance company, so there is no fault on the part of the bank/OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP no.1.

13.           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 is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

14.           OP no.3 submitted that the crop of the complainant was damaged due to natural disaster (heavy rain). OP no.3 inspected the fields of complainant on 02.10.2018 and prepared the report in which they have mentioned the damaged to the extent of 40% in one acre of land of the complainant.

15.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

16.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land in village Manjura and had obtained crop loan from OP no.1 (bank) and OP no.1 had deducted premium amounts for insurance of crop on behalf of OP no.2 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. It is also an admitted fact that the insurance premium was duly remitted in the account of OP No.2 by the OP No.1.

17.           Due to damage of crop, complainant moved an application to Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal for inspection of the damaged crop. The team of Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, has inspected the crop of complainant and submitted his report Ex.OP3/1, in which it clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant in village Manjura and observed that damaged crop to the extent of 40% in one acre of land.  Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Manjura and same was damaged to the extent of 40% in one acre of land but name of village has been wrongly mentioned by OP no.1 bank in the insurance portal. The insurance company denied to pay any compensation/claim to complainant while saying that complainant never shared the policy number and application number with the OP no.2. OP no.3 has also placed on record copy of inspection report Ex.OP3/1, conducted by agricultural department and representative of insurance company which reveals that on 02.10.2018 agriculture department and representative of insurance company inspected the field of complainant and found that his paddy crop in one acres of land was damaged due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report Ex.OP3/1 that paddy crop of complainant in one acre of land in village Manjura 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.

18.           Moreover, OP no.1 bank has also relied upon the minutes of the meeting to discuss the pending dispute of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) held on 02.07.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri Ajit Bala Ji Joshi, IAS Director General Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana and Minutes of the meeting to discuss the pending dispute of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) held on 11.09.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri D.K. Jain, Zonal Manager (PNB) and Convener SLBC Haryana, in the abovesaid meetings, it was resolved that 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, insurance company will pay the claim to farmers as per farmer record.

19.           In rebuttal, learned counsel for OP no.2 has relied upon   the minutes of 4^th Meeting of State Level Grievance Committee held on 14.1.2021, in which it has been resolved/ decided that in case of Village Name Mismatch, the concerned bank branch is liable to pay the claim of affected farmers. This observation has been given by the Committee on the basis of clause no.XXIV of PMFBY for the year Kharif 2016 to Kharif 2018 of Operational Guidelines and clause no.17.2 for the year Rabi 2018-19, Kharif-2019 and Rabi 2019-20 of Revised Operational Guidelines of PMFBY. The clause 17.2 of the Operational Guidelines of PMFBY is reproduced as under:-

“Consolidated declaration/ proposal formats to be submitted physically/ electronically by Nodal banks/ Branches shall contain details about Insurance Unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area insured of the farmers, number and category of farmers covered (small and marginal or other) and number of farmers under other categories (SC/ST/others)/ Women alongwith their bank account dertails etc. (bank/ their branches) as per the application for provided on the National Crop Insurance Portal. Banks are required to upload the insured farmers’ data mandatorily on the National Crop Insurance Portal. No other platform shall be used for uploading/ submission of farmers’ data. Those farmers whose data is uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal shall only be eligible for insurance coverage and accordingly the premium subsidy will also be released. 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 to them.

                Further relevant portion of clause No.24 of the revised operational guidelines of PMFBY regarding Important Conditions/ Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks is as under:-

24.1 “Insurance Companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intermediary or directly. In case of any loss in transit due to negligence by these agencies or non remittance of premium by these agencies, the concerned bank/ intermediaries shall be liable for payment of claims.”

24.2  “In case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/ branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting.”

20.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has submitted that abovesaid Minutes of the meeting has already been challenged by the concerned Banks before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the verdict of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court is still pending. Thus the said minutes of meetings are not applicable upon the OPs.

21.            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 by surveying the crop of complainant. So, the insurance company OP no.2 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.

 22.          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 has verified the data of the complainant as provided by the bank or found any misreporting on the part of OP no.1 bank. Moreover, insurance company cannot take the shelter that complainant never shared the policy number and application number specifically when the Loss Assessor of the OP was very much present at the time of survey of the damaged crop. So, only insurance company OP no.2 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, no liability of OPs no.1 & 3 is made out.

23.           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 three acres of land but as per survey report Ex.OP3/1 complainant has suffered loss to the extent to the extent of 40% in one acre of land. The said report has not been disputed by the insurance company. As per document issued by Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Haryana, as also produced in many another cases, the gross yield of paddy/kharif in the year 2018, in District Karnal is to the tune of Rs.45,000/- per acre. Complainant suffered loss in to the extent 40% in one acre of land. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.18000/-(18000x1) The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the damages of his crop, but as per the survey report, the loss comes out  to be of Rs.18,000/-only. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. However, no liability of OPs no.1 and 3 is made out.

24.           In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 i.e. insurance company to pay the amount of Rs.18,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of present complaint till its actual realization. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complaint against OPs no.1 and 3 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:30.09.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member