Haryana

Kaithal

382/20

Sate Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Jagjeet Singh

19 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.382 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 05.11.2020.

                                                     Date of Decision:19.07.2023.

Sate Ram son of Sh. Ratti Ram son of Mansa, resident of Village Sega, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Main Branch Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Kaithal, Office at Room No.103, Mini Secretariat, Kaithal.
   1.  

 

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Jagjeet Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. K.K.Khetarpal, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

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

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, Govt. Pleader for the OP No.3. 

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

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

1.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and having 8 acres agriculture land, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant is having account No.0248008800006901 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 year 2018-19 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.3792.60 paise on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 23 and 24 September, 2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and the loss of paddy crops was assessed upto the extent of 30-40% of farmers.  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.     

2.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  OP No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the premium amount of Rs.3792.60 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif-2018 (paddy).  Lateron consolidated premium amount including the aforesaid premium of Rs.3792.60 paise debited from the KCC account of present complainant,  was remitted to respondent No.2 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  It was the duty of OP No.2-insurance company to compulsorily verify and to reconcile the data uploaded by the bank and to take necessary information and action regarding insurance policy of farmers through National Crop Insurance Portal within stipulated date/cut off date and in case of any deficiency/mismatch same would have to be reported to concerned bank branch/State.  On merits, it is stated that the answering respondent has no role to play in settlement of claim of crop insurance, dispute if any is between the complainant and respondent No.2.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             OP No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that as per record, the complainant is not insured with the answering OP.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Sega, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Rain Water Logging” 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.  In the present case, the complainant is claiming for paddy crop of Village Sega, Distt. Kaithal.  As per yield data of village Sega provided by Govt., actual yield is more than the threshold yield, hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company and the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.  However, it is made clear that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by Bank of farmers.  If any mistake is done by bank of complainant or other institution, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim.  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.

4.             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.   

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3, OP No.2 tendered into evidence Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R4 to Annexure-R9 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and having 8 acres agriculture land, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is further argued that the complainant is having account No.0248008800006901 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 year 2018-19 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.3792.60 paise on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 23 and 24 September, 2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and the loss of paddy crops was assessed upto the extent of 30-40% of farmers.  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.

9.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has argued that the premium amount of Rs.3792.60 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif-2018 (paddy).  Lateron consolidated premium amount including the aforesaid premium of Rs.3792.6s0 paise debited from the KCC account of present complainant, was remitted to respondent No.2 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  It was the duty of OP No.2-insurance company to compulsorily verify and to reconcile the data uploaded by the bank and to take necessary information and action regarding insurance policy of farmers through National Crop Insurance Portal within stipulated date/cut off date and in case of any deficiency/mismatch same would have to be reported to concerned bank branch/State. 

10.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-Insurance Company has argued that as per yield data of village Sega provided by Govt., actual yield is more than the threshold yield, hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company and the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.    

11.            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.    

12.            The G.P. for the OP No.3-Agriculture Department has contended that the intimation received for localized claim was 5 acre, so, complainant is entitled for loss occurred in 5 acres.  Whereas, on the other hand, the complainant has stated that the premium amount of Rs.3792.60 paise was deducted for 8 acres land, so, he is entitled for 8 acre loss.  In this regard, query was made to representative of OP No.3-Agriculture Department, who has stated that premium amount of Rs.595/- was deducted per acre in the year 2018, so, in this way, the land comes as 6.37 acre (Rs.3792.60 paise ÷Rs.595/-).  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”.  

13.            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, if any, to the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his crop.

14.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5322.24 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 6.37 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.33,903/- (Rs.5322.24 paise x 6.37 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Insurance Company.         

15.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.33,903/- 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.     

16.            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.:19.07.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.