Haryana

Kaithal

184/21

Virender - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Yashpal Singh

12 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.184/2021

                                                     Date of institution: 30.07.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:12.09.2023.

Virender son of Sh. Balbir Singh resident of Village Songri Tehsil, Rajound District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Jakholi Through its Branch Manager.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Cabin No. 7, 3^rd Floor, Agro Mall Sector-20, Panchkula.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Secretariat, Kaithal.

….OPs.

        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. Yashpal Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Karan Kalra, Advocate for Op No. 1.

                Sh. Amit Kaushik, Advocate for OP No. 2.

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

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

       Virender-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 70 Kanals 09 Marlas comprised in situated at Village Songri, Tehsil Rajound, District Kaithal.  The complainant has an account No.714008800017077 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 Wheat for the period 2018-19 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.3367.76/- on 11.12.2019 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy hailstorm, the wheat 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 wheat crops 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, in its written statement specifically stated that he has no role about issuance of Crop insurance policy or about processing and adjudication of insurance claim pertaining to present complaint. It is stated that as per Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) and notification dated 30.03.2018 issued by Government of Haryana bearing memo No. 3009/Agri.II (I)-2016/10854 and notification bearing memo No. 941-Agri-II (I) 2018/4332 dated 30.03.2018 crops were require to be covered under this PMFBY, Scheme compulsorily. It is further submitted that as per PMFBY, Scheme the bank debited from respective KCC account of complainant for Fasal Bima Yojna of Wheat amounting to Rs.3,367.67/- and as such premium amount was transferred in the account of OP No. 2. There is no deficiency in service on their part, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

4.             OP No.2 filed the written version mentioning therein that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of wheat crop has been affected in Village Sangri, Tehsil Rajaund 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 wheat 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. So, the complainant was not entitled for yield loss as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  Moreover, under localized based claim, complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to answering OP within stipulated period of 48 hours of alleged loss to process the claim as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent.  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-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to annexure R8, OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents annexure R9 to annexure R18 and OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and closed their 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 70 Kanals 09 Marlas comprised in situated at Village Songri, Tehsil Rajound, District Kaithal.  The complainant has an account No.714008800017077 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 Wheat for the period 2018-19 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.3367.76/- on 11.12.2019 as insurance premium amount.  It is further argued that due to untimely heavy hailstorm, the wheat 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 wheat crops 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 as per PMFBY, Scheme the bank debited from respective KCC account of complainant for Fasal Bima Yojna of Wheat amounting to Rs.3,367.67/- and as such premium amount was transferred in the account of 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.  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.  It is further argued that the intimation of crop loss was rejected because crop in intimated village Songal was not insured for the complainant farmer on the NCI-Portal.  It is further argued that the OP Bank had uploaded crop in Village Sangri, Block Rajaund, Kaithal. 

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.            During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for OP No.2 has vehemently contended that the crop loss intimation was given by the OP No.1-bank regarding village Songal in the column of farmer’s address instead of Village Songri as per loss assessment application (Annexure-R16).  From perusal of this document, we found that village name of complainant was mentioned as Songal and in this regard, contention of OP No.2 is believable.  In this regard, he 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 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) 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.  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”.

14.            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 village name of complainant as Songal instead of Songri, 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 (mentioned supra), 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.

15.            To rebut the contention of OP No.2, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has 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”.

 

16.            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.

17.            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.

18.            So far how much loss the complainant has suffered is concerned.  As per Annexure-R14, the insured land is mentioned as 3.56 hectare which comes as approximately 8.80 acre.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3714.13 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 8.80 acre, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.32,684/-. 

19.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OPs No.1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay the amount of Rs.32,684/- 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 OPs No.1 & 2 are 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 against OPs No.1 & 2 and dismissed against OP No.3.   

20.            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.:12.09.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.