Haryana

Karnal

CC/485/2020

Tejbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab And Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 485 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.04.11.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:04.01.2023

 

Tejbir Singh (aged 58 years) son of Shri Har Singh, resident of village Ballah, Tehsil and District Karnal at present resident of house no.517, Braham Nagar, Hansi Chowk, Karnal. Aadhar no.2717 8852 6395.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch at village Saidpura, opposite CSSRI Pump, Kachhwa Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.,  Mugal Canal, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

3.     Deputy Director Agriculture, Department, near old court complex, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Shri Surendr Singh, 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 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 4½ acres of land situated in village Ballah, Tehsil and District Karnal. The complainant is the account holder of the OP no.1, vide account no.1317160000028 and also having Kisan Credit Card vide account no.04010619112002194850 issued by the OP no.1. 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.2567/-from the account of complainant for the insurance of crop for the year kharif, 2018. In the season of kharif, 2018 the crop of complainant spread over the land measuring 2 acres got destroyed due to natural disaster (heavy rain). The complainant immediately informed the agricultural department regarding the said damages of crop and accordingly the officials of the agriculture department as well as the officials of insurance company got surveyed the damaged crop. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP no.2 several times and requested for disbursement of the insurance claim but they flatly refused to disburse the same by alleging that the land of the complainant is not insured with them, as per record. The OP no.1 committed mistake in filing of the GOI portal, the place of the crop of complainant mentioned as Uchana instead of village Ballah.  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/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of damage till its realization,  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 insurance of the crop of complainant has not done as per direction of Government vide Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna on their Fasal Been Portal, vide pmfby.govt.in vide moreover the land of complainant is situated in the depth other than the plain land which was not on the ground level and rainy water was accumulated on the said land of the complainant and all these things had to be observed by OP no.2 being insurer of crops of complainant while passing the claim of complainant in order to see whether the complainant come in the preview of claim as per their norms as the abovesaid facts has not been disclosed by the complainant while filing the present complaint. The bank has disclosed the correct detail of the land and situation the land of the complainant to the OPno.2 and same was t be mentioned in the GOI Portal. In this way, if any claim of the complainant was made out or not is in between the complainant and OP no.2. Moreover, complainant has lodged the claim with OP no.2 and same was in process and would have to be passed by OP no.2 after due consideration as per their losses. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice 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 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 OPno.1 committed mistake in filing of the GOI portal, which is clear cut deficiency  in service on the part of the OP no.1 bank. The detail of the farmer as per record crop village filled by the farmer mentioned on form-3 (survey) Ballah(30) and the crop village on the GOI portal Kalampura (12) by this deficiency in service insurance company denied the claim.   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 survey report Ex.C1 and closed the evidence on 03.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jagdeep Singh, Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of statement of loan account Ex.R1, copy of insurance premium RTGS enquiry Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 24.08.2022 by suffering separate statement. 

8.             OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai Ex.RW1/A, copy of tabulation sheet Ex.R1, copy of five years blockwise average yield and threshold yield Ex.R2, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 11.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

9.             OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Project Officer Ex.OP3/A, copy of email dated 03.12.2020 Ex.OP3/1, copy of guidelines of PMFBY Ex.OP3/2, copy of survey report Ex.OP3/3 and closed the evidence on 11.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

10.           We have heard the complainant and learned counsel of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and representative of OP no.3 and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

11.           Complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint and submitted that he is account holder 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 submitted that he had sown paddy crop in his two 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 30% in two acres 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 water logging (heavy rainfall).  OP no.3 inspected the fields of complainant on 20.10.2018 and prepared the report in which they have mentioned the damaged to the extent of 30% in two acres 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 Ballah and is having the  bank account with the 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.C1/Ex.OP3/3, in which it clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant in village Ballah and observed that damaged crop to the extent of 30% in two acres of land.  Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Ballah and same was damaged to the extent of 30% in two acres 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.C1/Ex.OP3/3, conducted by agricultural department and representative of insurance company which reveals that on 20.10.2018 agriculture department and representative of insurance company inspected the field of complainant and found that his paddy crop in two acres of land was damaged due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report Ex.C1/ Ex.OP3/3 that paddy crop of complainant in two acres of land in village Ballah was damaged and he has 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 two acres of land but as per survey report Ex.C1/Ex.OP3/3 complainant has suffered loss to the extent to the extent of 30% in two 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 30% in two acres of land. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.27,000/-(13,500x2). 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.27,000/-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.27,000/- 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:04.01.2023                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member

 

 

Sushma

Stenographer