Haryana

Kaithal

118/21

Charan Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Ms.Nisha Gupta

20 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.118/2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 23.04.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:20.09.2023.

Charan Kaur W/o Sh. Mohan Singh, r/o Village Baraot, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Nauch Branch, District Kaithal.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Regional Office, Cabin No.7, 3^rd Floor, Agro Mall, Sector-20, Panchkula-132117.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No.103, Secretariat, Kaithal.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Karan Kalra, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for the OP No.2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, G.P. for the OP No.3.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Charan Kaur-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and owned agriculture land measuring 3 Acre situated within the revenue estate of Village Barot, Distt. Kaithal.  The complainant has an account No.1464008800006515 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of “Insurance Rabi (wheat)” for the period 2019-20 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.1152.90 paise on 13.12.2019 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall in that area on 5,6,7.03.2020, the wheat crop of the complainant was damaged due to “Rainwater logging”.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of Department/Committee and assessed loss of damaged crops on average basis 35% but on the individual application of complainant, no loss was assessed.  The complainant requested the OPs to pay the claim amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.    

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  OP No.1 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that to implement the scheme of PMFBY, premium amounts were debited from respective KCC account of complainant on 13.12.2019 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Rabi 2019 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.2 itself alongwith premium amount of other farmers and premium amount of Rs.8,32,412.70 paise was credited in the account of OP No.2 in their account No.919020038228811 dt. 30.12.2019 and data of all the farmers was also feeded by Op No.1 at NCIP Portal.  It is further stated that the OP No.2 is liable to compensate the complainant, if any.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

4.             OP No.2 filed the written version mentioning therein that the complainant farmer has not mentioned NCI-Portal application number as-well-as farmer ID number in the complaint as the same particulars are required to ascertain their crop insurance coverage and for submitting reply accordingly; that the role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institutions that are part of this scheme.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering OP.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             OP No.3 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the fields of complainant as-well-as other farmers were inspected by the officials of answering OP randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint

6.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             On the other hand, the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R3 to Annexure-R9 and OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R10 to Annexure-R18 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

8.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and owned agriculture land measuring 3 Acre situated within the revenue estate of Village Barot, Distt. Kaithal.  The complainant has an account No.1464008800006515 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of “Insurance Rabi (wheat)” for the period 2019-20 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.1152.90 paise on 13.12.2019 as insurance premium amount.  It is further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall in that area on 5,6,7.03.2020, the wheat crop of the complainant was damaged due to “Rainwater logging”.  It is further argued that the complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of Department/Committee and assessed loss of damaged crops on average basis 35% but on the individual application of complainant, no loss was assessed.  The complainant requested the OPs to pay the claim amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has argued that the premium amounts were debited from respective KCC account of complainant on 13.12.2019 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Rabi 2019 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.2 itself alongwith premium amount of other farmers and premium amount of Rs.8,32,412.70 paise was credited in the account of OP No.2 in their account No.919020038228811 dt. 30.12.2019 and data of all the farmers was also feeded by Op No.1 at NCIP Portal.  He has shifted the liability, if any, upon the OP No.2.   

11.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-Insurance Company has argued that the complainant farmer has not mentioned NCI-Portal application number as-well-as farmer ID number in the complaint as the same particulars are required to ascertain their crop insurance coverage and for submitting reply accordingly.  Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-insurance company has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank and another Vs. Singam Siva Sankar Reddy and another passed by Hon’ble National Commission on 30.10.2015 bearing revision petition No.2673 of 2013; Canara Bank Vs. Seth Prakash Chandra Jain and another passed by Hon’ble National Commission on 11.12.2013 bearing revision petition No.4589 of 2013 and Syndicate Bank Vs. Ranga Reddy & others passed by Hon’ble National Commission on 20.09.2020 bearing revision petition No.2143-2148 of 2009.     

12.            Sh. Pushpinder Saini, GP for the OP No.3-Agriculture Department has stated that the claim does not arise on average yield because in the present case, average yield is greater than threshold yield.  He has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT at the time of arguments, which is Mark-A on the file.

13.            The objection raised by ld. counsel for the OP No.2 as-well-as OP No.3 is that intimation regarding loss was not given by the complainant.  To rebut the said contention, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the application given to the Deputy Direction Agriculture, Kaithal on 19.10.2020 as per Annexure-C3 and claim form as per Annexure-C4 from which it is clear that the intimation regarding loss was given to the OP No.3-Agriculture Department.  We can also rely upon the authority titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Puran etc. 2021(2) CLT 171 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 19.12.2019, wherein it is held by Hon’ble National Commission that “Plea of insurance company that no privity of contract between petitioner and complainants and no intimation of loss given-Admittedly, premium for crop insurance came to be paid from accounts of complainant-Therefore, it cannot be said that complainants are not consumers of petitioner company-Further, in view of alleged failure to intimate loss to insurer, written version filed by State Bank of India before District Forum shows that scheme did not envisage any such intimation-Therefore, revision petitions dismissed with liberty to petitioner company to avail such remedy as may be open to it in law against concerned Govt.”  The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case as the premium of Rs.1152.90 paise was deducted by the OP No.1-bank from the account of complainant under the PMFBY scheme.  So, the contention of OPs No.2 & 3 that no intimation regarding loss was given by the complainant has no value in the eyes of law.  In the present case, as per Annexure-R2, the insured land is 1.22 hectare which comes as approximately 3 acres.  So far the liability is concerned, if there was any discrepancy in the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) etc. of the farmers concerned, then it was required for the OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the said amount, within two months of cutoff date to the OP No.1 bank, but nothing has been done on the part of OP No.2 and this Commission rely upon in this regard on “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018” and its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii is relevant, which reads as under:-

“xxii) The Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the Insurance Company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim”.  

14.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was the required for OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmers concerned to OP No.1 bank after pointing out any discrepancy on its end, within the period of cut off date of two months, but in the case in hand, OP No.2 had neither raised any objection within the period of cutoff date of two months nor intimated to OP No.1 bank regarding any discrepancy in this regard and kept the premium amount with it, and now at the time when crops of complainant was destroyed and he is demanding the claim amount, as per policy from it, then OP No.2 refused to pay the same on this flimsy ground, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. As such, the OP No.2 insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his crop.  The authorities submitted by ld. counsel for the OP No.2 are not applicable to the facts of instant case.   

15.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3769.16 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 3 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.11,307/- (Rs.3769.16 paise x 3 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Insurance Company.        

16.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.11,307/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  The OP No.2-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against OP No.2-insrance company and dismissed against OPs No.1 & 3.     

17.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP No.2 shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.09.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),                          

Member.                           

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.