Haryana

Karnal

CC/609/2019

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab And Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Yashbir Singh

16 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 609 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.06.09.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:16.08.2022

 

Rajesh Kumar aged about 40 years son of Ishwar Singh, resident of village Manjura Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Punjab and Sind Bank Kaithal Road, village Manjura Tehsil and District Karnal through its Branch 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 Ambedkar Chowk, 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.       

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

           

 Argued by: Shri Yashbir Singh, counsel for complainant.

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

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for OP no.2.

                    Shri Surinder Kumar, 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 agriculturist by profession and having his bank account no.06011600001353 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.5247/- from the account of complainant on 24.07.2018 for crop insurance under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The complainant is farmer and is owner in possession of agriculture land measuring eight acres in village Manjura. The paddy crop-2018 of the complainant was damaged to the extent of more than 40% due to the heavy rain and accumulation of water in the fields of the complainant. The said loss of the paddy crop of the complainant was assessed and verified by the Field Officer, Department of Agriculture, Karnal. Said loss comes to Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, complainant lodged his claim with OP no.1 and OP no.1 referred the matter to OP no.2 but OP no.2 refused to pay the claim on the ground that OP has not uploaded the name of the complainant on their portal. The mistake, if any is on the part of the OP no.1 and as such the complainant cannot be penalized for the same. The complainant wrote several letters, reminder to the OPs for making payment of the amount of compensation of his eight acres but nothing has been done by the OPs. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; locus standi and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that the OP no.1 bank had deducted the premium from the account of the complainant of Rs.5247.90 on 24.07.2018 for paying the crop insurance premium 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 and liability to pay compensation is of the OP no. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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 insurance company also checked the complainant details through the account no.06011600001358. The contentions of prayer clause are hereby wrong and denied and complainant is not liable for Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest and Rs.1,22,000/- 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 in its written version stated that the detail of the farmer not uploaded on GOI portal by the OP no.1, due to this insurance company has denied the claim of the complainant. As per the operational guidelines 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.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bank statement Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, copy of survey report Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 09.05.2022 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.OP1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.OP1, copy of screen short & RTG of Insurance Credit in the account of insurance company Ex.OP2, copy of minutes of meeting held on 02.07.2019 Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 07.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai Ex.RW1/A, copy of Tabulation Sheet Ex.R1, copy of five year block wise average yield Ex.R2, copy of operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.3 and closed the evidence on 07.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

9.             OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Project Officer, Ex.OP3/A, copy of letter dated 19.02.2021 regarding payment of the admissible claim under PMFBY Ex.OP3/1, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.OP3/2 and closed the evidence on 07.06.2022 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 for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant 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 remitted 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 representative of the 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 crop of the complainant is not insured with the OP no.2. As per report of the Agriculture, complainant has a loss to the extent of 40% in eight acres of land and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

12.           Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.1 while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that after deduction of premium amount under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 remitted the same in the account of insurance company i.e. OP no.2, so there is no fault on the part of the bank/OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint against 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 was unabled to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.2.

 14.          OP no.3 has submitted that the crop of the complainant was damaged due to overflow water.  OP no.3 inspected the fields of complainant on 02.10.2018 alongwith representative of the OP no.2 and prepared the report in which they shown that the crop of complainant damaged 40% in eight acres.

15.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land in village Manjura, Block Nissing, 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.C2/Ex.OP1. 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.5247/- from banker of complainant i.e. OP no.1 on behalf of complainant for insuring the paddy crop of complainant of kharif, 2018.

16.           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 eight 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.C3, prepared 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 in his presence and found that his paddy crop in eight acres of land was damaged due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report Ex.C3 that paddy crop of complainant in eight acre of land in village Manjura, block Nissing, 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 was present at the time of survey of the field of the complainant. 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.

 17.          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.

18.           Now, we observe the entitlement of the complainant regarding the claim amount for the damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. As per survey report Ex.C3 the complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 40% in eight acres of land. Thus, the complainant is entitled for compensation for eight acres. As per document issued by Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Haryana, as 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. As per agriculture report Ex.C3 complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 40% in eight acres of his crop. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.1,44,000/-(18000x8=1,44,000/-). The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the damages of his crop, but as per the survey report, the loss comes out  to be of Rs.1,44,000/-only.  Further, the OP no.2 has not denied the fact that other farmers of village Manjura, Block Nissing, District Karnal having their land in this village, have not received any insurance claim amount against damage of their crop. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the abovesaid amount alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. However, no liability of OPs no.1 and 3 is made out.

19            In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 to pay the amount of Rs.1,44,000/- 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.15,000/- 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:16.08.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member