Haryana

Kaithal

308/19

Ram Kala - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Davinder Kumar Gorsi

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.308 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 24.09.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:12.04.2023.

Ram Kala son of Sh. Mangat Ram r/o Kawartan, Tehsil Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Timber Market through its Manager, Distt. Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company, Jagadhari Road, Ambala through its Manager.

….Respondents.

3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal, Office at Secretariat, Kaithal.

..Performa Respt.

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Davinder Gorsi, Advocate for the complainant.   

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

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Ram Kala-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned 107 Kanals 13 Marla of agriculture land situated at Village Kawartan Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.4812008800009916 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant of Kharif (paddy) 2018 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amounts of Rs.3866.77 paise on 30.07.2018 and Rs.2087.32 paise on 15.12.2018 respectively as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in the month of September, 2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant reported the matter to the respondent No.3 and the officials of respondents No.3 in return inspected the agriculture fields of complainant and assessed 20% to 30% damage of paddy crop of 3 acres only out of total 107 Kanals 13 Marlas acres of land.  The complainant has suffered a loss of approximately Rs.1,13,100/- i.e. Rs.8700/- per acre.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  Respondent No.1 filed the written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; to implement the scheme of PMFBY, premium amounts were debited from respective KCC account of complainant on 09.08.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018-19 and such premium amount was remitted to the respondent No.2 itself alongwith premium amount of other farmers also i.e. 236 farmers and premium amount of Rs.6,07,710.84 paise was credited in the account of respondent No.2 in their account No.024802100026568 vide TM No.M811438 dt. 09.08.2018 and data of all the farmers was also feeded by respondent No.1 at NCIP Portal.  Soft copy of consolidated list of farmers/proposals/declarations pertaining to different villages (who were loanee farmer of PNB) including that of present complainant was prepared by respondent No.1 and same was also sent to respondent No.2.  It is further stated that on date premium amount on behalf of present complainant has been retained by the respondent No.2.  Respondent No.2 duly accepted the crop insurance premium on behalf of complainant and other farmers alongwith list of farmers/proposals/declarations itself through respondent No.1 bank and retained such amount as on date.  The claim amount would be paid by the respondent No.2 to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Kawartan, District Kaithal, due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy Rain Fall” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme and to prove the same, no documentary proof of any kind has been annexed with the complaint; that 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; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop; that apart from non-submission of claim, the complainant has also not supplied any proof for loss or whether index report of Metrological Department of India in support of claim which establishes that the alleged loss of crop had never occurred in the area.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint..

4.             Respondent 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 loss was assessed randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R12 and respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R13 to Annexure-R17 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

7.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             Sh. Devender Gorsi, Adv. for the complainant has stated that 107 Kanal 13 marla land is lying in Kawartan Village but due to clerical mistake, the bank authorities have given the wrong name of village i.e. Kawartan to Narar.  Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the Oriental Insurance Company-respondent No.2 has argued that if wrong data is feeded by the bank, then the concerned bank shall have to pay the compensation to the complainant as decided by meeting of banks under “PMFBY” dt. 14.01.2021.

9.             Sh. Karan Kalra, Adv. for the Punjab National Bank-respondent No.1 has stated that the concerned bank has remitted the credited amount of Rs.13,80,104/- to the insurance company on 04.07.2019.  It is clarified that PNB T.M. Kaithal Claim reversed dt. 22.04.2019.  Meaning thereby that the insurance company had sent the amount of Rs.13,80,104/- to the P.N.B., Kaithal.  But the P.N.B. T.M.Kaithal had reversed that amount of Rs.13,80,104/- on 04.07.2019 to the insurance company.  Now insurance company is having the aforesaid amount in its custody.  This amount belongs to 236 farmers.  4% service charge was claimed by the bank from the insurance company for this wrong/mistake for sending the wrong names of the villages of 236 farmers to which the insurance money was to be given.  Sh. Karan Kalra, Adv. for the P.N.B., Kaithal-respondent No.1 has placed reliance upon the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Gujarat State Consumers’ Protection Centre and another Vs. General Insurance Corporation of India and others, 2005(2) CPC 209 and Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Irawati and another bearing Revision Petition No.783 of 2008 decided on 07.05.2014 in complaint case No.1552 of 2006.  The said authorities have been perused and duly considered by us. 

10.              Ld. counsel for the insurance company-respondent No.2 has placed reliance upon the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & another Vs. Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & another, 2015(4) CLT 545; Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Agricultural Insurance Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Hem Shankar, 2017(1) CPJ 538; Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission in case titled as Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. Vs. Sri Chikkala Satyanarayana, 2017(4) CPJ 1 and Hon’ble Gujarat State Commission in case titled as General Manager, General Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mer Lakhman Ramde Odedara 2004(2) CPJ 770.  The said authorities have been duly considered by us but facts of these cases are distinguishable from the facts of present case because in the present case, Insurance Company is having all the amounts of insurance premium as-well-as claim amount wrongly with it as P.N.B. Kaithal had returned the amount of Rs.13,80,104 on 04.07.2019 to the Insurance Company-respondent No.2.

11.            Sh. Pushpinder Singh, 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.

12.            Ld. counsel for OP No.2 further contended that OP No.1 bank had uploaded/sent wrong insured village name of complainant as Narar instead of Kawartan as per Annexure-R17.  From perusal of this document, we found that village name of complainant was mentioned as Narar and in this regard, contention of OP No.2 is believable. The OP No.2 further contended that as per “Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY)”, OP No.1 bank is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant for his wrong/mistake. “Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY)” is relevant and extract part of sub-Clause 17.2 of Clause 17 “Collection of Proposals and Premium from Farmers”, reads as under:-

                “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”.

13.            So as per above Guidelines, it is clear that for any mistake in uploading/providing the data of farmer concerned on the Government Portal regarding PMFBY, the concerned bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any to the farmer concerned for his wrong/mistake, as such, in the case in hand, it is admitted fact that OP No.1 bank uploaded/provided wrong insured village name of complainant as Narar instead of Kawartan, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 bank, as such, as per above Guidelines, OP No.1 bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any to the complainant. In this regard, view of this Commission is also fully supported by the case law titled Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & Anr., Petitioners Versus Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & Anr., Respondents, Revision Petition Nos.2673 of 2013 with Revision Petition No.1226 to 1230, 1287 to 1289, 1947 to 1965, 1967, 1968, 2032, 2033, 2035 to 2046 of 2014 and Revision Petition No.2695 of 2013 in Appeal No.761 of 2012. D.O.D. 03.10.2015 (NCDRC, New Delhi), wherein, it is held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) Crop Insurance Scheme- Insurance premium debited in loan account of agriculturists by the bank by receiving service charges on premium collected from agriculturists – Damage of groundnut crops – Repudiation of claim – Deficiency in service – Complaint allowed against bank in appeal – Legality of – There was relationship of consumer and service provider between agriculturists and bank – As per Clause 19 of guidelines to Financial Institutions, Financial Institutions were to be only responsible for all omissions and commissions committed by them – Prima facie, error has been committed by bank in remitting amount of premium recovered from agriculturists while sending it to insurance company in wrong name of village of complainants – Bank rightly held liable to reimburse all the losses.

14.            At the time of arguments, learned counsel for OP No.1 has further contended that for the sake of discussion, if it is assumed that OP No.1 bank uploaded wrong data/village name of complainant on the Government Portal, even then, it was required for OP No.2 insurance company to verify the data of farmers concerned within two months of cutoff date and drawn attention of this Commission towards “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”.

 

15.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was  required for OP No.2 insurance company to verify the data/information provided by OP No.1 bank regarding the farmers concerned within the period of cutoff date of two months and if any discrepancy/mistake is found by OP No.2, then intimate to OP No.1 bank in this regard, 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 the data uploaded by 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 also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.

16.            So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that OP No.1 bank had uploaded/supplied wrong village name of complainant to OP No.2 insurance company and then, on receiving the said wrong information by OP No.2 from OP No.1, OP No.2 had not raised this objection/issue with OP No.1 bank within the period of cutoff date of two months, as such, both the OPs are deficient in providing the services to the complainant, due to which, the complainant suffered mental agony, physical harassment as well as financial loss. So, in view of “Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY)” and “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018”, both the OPs, for their above act, severally and jointly, are liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant, for the loss suffered by him due to destroy of his standing crops.

17.            So far as the question of how much land was insured is concerned, during the course of arguments, the representative alongwith G.P. appearing on behalf of Agriculture Department has stated that the premium amount of Rs.594.84 paise per acre was deducted by the OP No.1-bank from the farmers in the Village Kawartan.  It is clear from the copy of statement of account relating to complainant as per Annexure-C1 that the premium amount of Rs.3866.77 paise was deducted on 30.07.2018 by the OP No.1-bank from the account of complainant.  So, in this way, total land was insured as 6.5 acre.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4507.20 paise per acre.  Hence, for 6.5 acre, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.29,297/-. 

18.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the amount of Rs.29,297/- shall be given to the complainant-Ram Kala alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization which shall be given by OPs No.1 & 2 jointly and severally within 45 days.  The Ops No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted against OPs No.1 & 2 and dismissed against OP No.3.   

19.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs No.1 & 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 both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:12.04.2023.

 

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.