BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 301 of 2019
Date of Institution : 13.11.2019
Date of Decision : 20.07.2022
Ishwar son of Sh. Rangi R/o VPO Garhwali Tehsil Julana District Jind.
….Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank Gatauli Branch, Jind.
2. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office: “Natraj” 101,201 & 301, Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla - Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400069 through its Managing Director/authorized person.
3. State of Haryana through Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Jind.
……Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM: SH. MUKESH BANSAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT. NEERU AGARWAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. Kamal Rai Sharma, learned counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, learned counsel for OP No.2.
Sh. Navneet Kumar, Assistant Statistical Officer on behalf of OP No.3.
ORDER:
Facts giving rise to filing of this complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist and owner in possession of land measuring 33 kanals 13 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 2015-2016 situated within revenue estate of village Garhwali. Complainant is having bank account no.327000101047292 with the OP No.1. He got insured his kharif crop (paddy) from OP No.2 through OP No.1 on payment of premium Rs.2499/- on 31.07.2018 from the said account under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (in short PMFBY). As per complainant, during the insurance period, the paddy crop of complainant in 4 ¼ acre got damaged to the extent 100 % due to heavy rains and natural calamity. However, as per sample survey it was 75.5%. Complainant has pleaded that due to damage to the crop, he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,97,500/-. But no amount of compensation was given to him despite several requests. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging glaring deficiency in service on the part of Ops thereby to pay Rs.2,97,500/- as compensation, Rs.50,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation charges.
2. Notice sent to the Ops who appeared through their counsel/representative.
OP No.1-bank in its reply raised preliminary objections qua impleading the answering OP as a party in the complaint. On facts, it is admitted that the crop of complainant was insured with OP No.2. Further that the answering OP had no information regarding damage to the crop of complainant. The information was given to the insurance company as well as Agriculture. According to the complainant, Committee had conducted a survey. The OP has denied deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
OP No.2-insurance company filed reply submitting therein that complainant never shared policy and application number with the answering OP. Hence, the OP insurance company was/is not able to trace the claim or any grievance for such allegations. Op has pleaded that complainant’s detail through account no.327000101047292 got checked but no such claim information was available with the OP company. OP No.2 has also denied deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
OP No.3-agriculture department appeared through its representative and filed reply raising preliminary objections qua cause of action, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties besides maintainability. The OP has denied the contents of complaint in toto and prayed for dismissal with special compensatory costs.
3. The complainant in order to support the contents of complaint filed his affidavit Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-7. OP No.1 to rebut the case of complainant filed affidavit of Sh. Jagdish Redhu, Branch Manager as Annexure OPW1/A and closed the evidence. OP No.2 despite availing sufficient opportunities failed to produce any evidence, therefore, vide order dated 06.12.2021 evidence was closed. OP No.3 filed his affidavit OPW3/A and closed the evidence. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant placed on record Clause XVII of operational guidelines for PMFBY which has been taken on record as Annexure XY.
4. We have heard leaned counsel for the parties, representative of OP No.3 and perused the record very carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that due to heavy rains his paddy crop sown in 4 ¼ acre got flooded with water and damaged to the extent of 75.5%. The counsel argued that complainant suffered loss of Rs.2,97,500/- for the paddy crop but the OP insurance company did not pay any compensation. Further that the act & conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as harassment to the complainant.
On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 argued that complainant never shared policy & application number with the answering OP. So, the OP insurance company was not able to trace the alleged claim/grievance of complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
Learned counsel for OP No.1 also argued that crop of complainant was insured with OP No.2 and the policy had been issued by it and compensation, if any, is to be paid by the Op insurance company. The OP bank has no knowledge about the damage of the crop of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and argued for dismissal of complaint qua it.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of bank account of complainant (Annexure C-2), it emerges that the premium for crop insurance of complainant was deducted by the OP bank on 31.07.2018 and as per affidavit of Sh. Jagdish Redhu, Branch Manager of OP Bank (OPW1/A), the amount of premium was paid to the OP insurance company. But as per OP insurance company, it was not received from the OP bank, therefore, the crop of complainant was not insured with it and thus no question of paying any compensation to the complainant arises. It is mandatory under the PMFBY Notification that farmer availing loans from financial institutions (loanee farmers) for the notified crops would be covered compulsorily. In the present case, Op bank has admitted that complainant was availing cash credit limit from it under the aforementioned bank account number and premium of Rs.2499/- was deducted from the said account of complainant for crop insurance. The OP bank has not placed on record any document which could show that the premium amount so deducted was remitted to the OP insurance company or that it has received the premium amount. Further, as per PMFBY guidelines “Insurance companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intimidators or directly. 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 claim. (2) If 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 miss-reporting”. In view of this, the OP bank is hereby held liable to compensate the complainant for the crop loss.
As per intimation of crop loss by OP No.3 Agriculture Department to the OP No.2 insurance company (Annexure C-4) and sample survey report (Annexure C-5), complainant has suffered loss to the paddy crop in 4 ¼ acre by 75.5%. To prove ownership over the land, complainant has placed on record copy of jamabandi Annexure C-6. The prevailing rate of sum insured for the paddy crop was Rs.28,935/- per acre during the year 2018. Therefore, calculating the actual loss to the paddy crop of complainant in 4 ¼ acre while assessing loss at 75.5% comes to Rs.1,22,973/-. Therefore, the complaint is allowed and the OP No.1 bank is directed to comply with the following directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order:-
(i) To pay Rs.1,22,973/- (Rs. One lac twenty two thousand nine hundred seventy three) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till the date of actual realization. In case of default, the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till the actual realization.
(ii) And to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
- Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousand) as litigation expenses.
Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs, on usual terms. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced on:20.07.2022 (Mukesh Bansal) President
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer.
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
CC No.301 of 2019
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. Kamal Rai Sharma, learned counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, learned counsel for OP No.2.
Sh. Navneet Kumar, Assistant Statistical Officer on behalf of OP No.3.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has placed on record Clause XVII of operational guidelines for PMFBY which taken on record as Annexure XY.
Arguments concluded. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint has been allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced: 20.07.2022. Member President DCDRC, Jind
