Haryana

Karnal

CC/493/2019

Chudia Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Arora

22 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 493 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.02.08.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:22.09.2022

 

Chudia Ram son of Shri Maan Sngh son of Shri Govind resident of village Kairwali, Tehsil Gharaunda District Karnal (Aadhaar no.7682 1543 3655)

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Punjab National Bank branch at village Kutail Tehsil and District Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., 1^st floor. B.D. International SCO no.388-380, Karan Commercial Complex, (Old Mugal Canal) near Guru Harikishan Public School, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Satish Arora, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Bhavishya Sahni, counsel for OP no.1.

                   Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for OP no.2.

  

                    (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 an agriculturist by profession and having 60K-19M of land in village Kairwali Tehsil and District Karnal, vide Jamabandi for the year 1985-1986. Complainant is having a KCC limit account with the OP no.1, vide account no.0722008800004306. OP no.1 asked the complainant that as per the instructions and guidelines of the Government of India, the complainant will have to get his crops insured under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The premium of the said insurance was deducted from the account of complainant every season. The premium of the insurance of Khariff 2018, was also deducted from the account of complainant. In the season of Kharif, 2018 the crop of the complainant got destroyed due to heavy rain and accumulation of water in the fields of the complainant, due to which complainant has suffered huge financial loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant gave the intimation to the OP no.1 about the loss of his crop, then on the advice of the OP no.1, complainant contacted the OP no.2, who was the insurer of his crop and he will pay the damages to the complainant.  Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP no.2 and lodged his claim but OP no.2 did not pay any claim to the complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to  pay the claim on the ground that as per their record the village of the complainant is recorded as Kutail whereas he is having his land at village Kairwali. The aforesaid mistake of wrong mentioning of village of the complainant is not on the part of the complainant, rather it has taken place either due to the careless and negligent act of the OP no.1 or OP no.2, hence complainant cannot be penalized for same. 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 to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of damage till its realization, to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, torture, harassment and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 after getting the insurance premium from the complainant remitted in the account of OP no.2 and same was duly accepted by the OP no.2 and OP no.2 neither raised objection about the mismatch of the village of the complainant nor refunded the insurance premium to the complainant or OP no.1, hence it is OP no.2 who is solely liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. It is further pleaded that there is no mistake on the part of the OP no.1. Rather at the time of acceptance of the insurance premium, the OP no.2 has to verify the facts and if there was any mistake regarding wrong mentioning of the village. As per instruction of the bank “cases where farmers record mismatch and premium paid by banks to insurance company on time. Whereas insurance company not returned the premium to the bank in time, insurance company will have to pay the claim to the farmers”. 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 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.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of passbook Ex.C1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.C1/B and Ex.C1/C, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C2, copy of Jamabandi Ex.C3, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C4, copy of email dated 11.07.2019 Ex.C5, copy of letter to Deputy Director Agriculture Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 15.01.2020 by suffering separate statement.

6.             In additional evidence, learned counsel for complainant has tendered letter of bank dated 08.05.2018 with regard to insurance is compulsory for loanee farmers under PMFBY Ex.C7, copy of survey report Ex.C8 and closed the additional evidence on 30.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurmeet Kapoor, GPA Ex.OP1/A, copy of minutes of meetings held on 11.09.2019 Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 22.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

8.             OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Arvind Singh Naruka Authorized Signatory Ex.RW1/A, copy of insurance acknowledge receipt Ex.R1, copy of tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY for Kharif, 2018 Ex.R2, copy of screen short of government portal Ex.R3, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 05.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

9.             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.

10.           Learned counsel of complainant, while reiterating the contents of complainant, has vehemently argued that complainant has obtained cash credit limit for agriculture/loan from the OP no.1 under scheme of cash credit agriculture and for the purpose of loan. Complainant had mortgaged his agriculture land in favour 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 argued that the complainant had sown paddy crop in his 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 25% in ten 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.

11.           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 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 qua OP no.1.

12.           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.

13.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

14.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land in village Kairwali and had obtained crop loan from 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.

15.           Due to damage of crop, complainant moved an application Ex.C6 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.C8, in which it clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant in village Kairwali and observed that damaged crop to the extent of 25% in four hectares of land.  Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Kairwali and same was damaged to the extent of 25% in four hectares 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 on the ground that complainant never shared the policy number and application number with the OP no.2.

16.           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 11.09.2019 as Ex.OP1 under the Chairmanship of Shri D.K.Jain, Zonal Manager (PNB) and Convener SLBC, Haryana in the abovesaid meeting, 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.

17.           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.”

18.           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.

19.            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.

20.           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 OP no.1 is made out.

21.           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 four hectares (ten acres) of land and has suffered loss to the extent to the extent of 25%. The said report has not been disputed by the insurance company. As per document/letter 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 to the extent 25% in ten acres of land. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.1,12,500/- (11250x10=1,12,500/-).The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for the damages of his crop, but as per the survey report, the loss comes out  to be of Rs.1,12,500/-only.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for the abovesaid amount alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. However, no liability of OP no.1 made out.

22.           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.1,12,500/- (Rs.one lakhs twelve thousand five hundred only) 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 OP no.1 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:22.09.2022                                                                     

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

      Member                       Member