BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 384 of 2019
Date of Institution : 04.12.2019
Date of Decision : 09.08.2022
Rammehar son of Haridass R/o village Jhamola Tehsil Julana District Jind.
.….Complainant
Versus
- Punjab National Bank, Karela Tehsil Julana District 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.
SH. G.D. GOYAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. Rajesh Goyat, 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
The facts giving rise to the present complaint are that paddy crop of complainant was insured with OP no.1 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yajana (in short PMFBY) during the season Kharif 2017 and for this purpose he paid Rs.1302.08p. from his bank account focomplainant is an agriculturist having his land situated within revenue estate of village Jhamola. He maintained bank account No.1110000100037398 with OP No.1. His Kharif (Paddy) crop was insured by OP No.2 under PMFBY through OP No.1 by deducting premium of Rs.595/- on 31.07.2018 from his bank account. It is averred that 1 acre paddy crop of complainant got damaged due to inundation on 25.09.2018. Information of damaged crop was given to insurance company and Agriculture Department on 27.09.2018. Upon information, a committee was constituted and survey was conducted on 15.10.2018. Loss was found to the paddy crop to the extent of 70%. However, as per complainant, his crop was totally damaged and he suffered loss of Rs.70,000/- in paddy crop but the insurance company did not pay any claim to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has submitted that the act and conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. By way of this complaint, complainant has sought payment of Rs.70,000/- as compensation for crop damage, Rs.30,000/- has been sought as compensation for harassment alongwith interest @ 18% per annum besides Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.
2. Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies.
OP No.1-bank contested the complaint on the ground of maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, averments of the complainant has been denied. Complainant’s crop was insured by OP No.2 insurance company and the answering Op deducted premium amount from the account of complainant and sent the same to OP insurance company which was duly accepted. Crop loss to the complainant has been denied for want of knowledge. The loss mentioned is also on higher side. It is urged that OP bank is only a mediator for crop insurance of complainant and compensation, if any is to be settled by the OP insurance company. As per the OP, complainant has already received the amount of claim partly from the OP insurance company. Deficiency in service on its part has been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
OP No.2- insurance company filed reply that complainant never shared policy and application number with the answering OP. Hence, the OP insurance company would not trace the claim or any grievance for such allegations. Further that complainant’s detail through abovesaid bank account got checked but no such claim or information was available with the OP company. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
OP No.3-agriculture department in the reply raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous, complainant is not consumer of OP No.3 and thus present complaint does not lie against the answering Op, the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive to extract money from it and that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that the survey was conducted is a matter of record, however, denied any kind of compensation to the complainant from the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. To buttress his complaint, complainant placed on record his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence.
On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 placed on record documents as Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/9.
Learned counsel for OP No.2 has placed on record affidavit of Sh. Arvind Singh Naruka as Annexure OPW2/A and closed the evidence.
OP No.3 has placed on record affidavit OPW3/A and closed the evidence.
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.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that due to heavy rains his paddy crop sown in 1 acre got flooded with water and damaged by 70%. The counsel has argued that complainant suffered loss of Rs.70,000/-for the paddy crop. But the OP insurance company did not pay any claim to the complainant. Thus complainant’s counsel argued 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 would not 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 has 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. But as per OP insurance company, it has not received premium 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.595/- was deducted from the said account of complainant for crop insurance. The OP bank has not placed on record any document to show that the premium amount so deducted was remitted to the OP insurance company or that it 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 1 acre by 70%. To prove ownership over the land, complainant has placed on record copy of jamabandi Annexure C-6. As per notification Annexure C-7, the sum insured for paddy crop was Rs.73,500/- for per hectare (Rs.29,400/- per acre) during the year 2018. Therefore, calculating the actual loss to the paddy crop of complainant in 1 acre while assessing loss at 70% comes to Rs.20,580/-. 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.20,580/- (Rs. Twenty thousand five hundred eighty) 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:09.08.2022 (Mukesh Bansal) President
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer.
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(G.D. Goyal)
Member
CC No.384 of 2019
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. Rajesh Goyat, 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: 09.08.2022 Member Member President DCDRC, Jind
