BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 198 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 10.09.2020.
Date of Decision : 14.05.2024.
Baldev Singh aged about 77 years son of Shri Chatin Singh, resident of village Mangeana, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Punjab & Sind Bank, Mandi Dabwali, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Near Janta Bhawan, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Kewal Kamboj, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A. S. Wadhwa, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist and is having agricultural land measuring about 149 kanals 04 marlas situated in village Mangeana, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. The complainant has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on his above said land through account number 03111600010064. That as per crop insurance scheme for insurance of his crop of Kharif, 2018, a sum of Rs.8143.80 was deducted by op no.1 from the above said account of complainant on 31.07.2018 and op no.1 got insured the crop from op no.2 under collaboration scheme but copy of policy was not supplied to him. It is further averred that in the village the crop of Kharif, 2018 including crop of complainant was destroyed on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and as such complainant is entitled to get compensation on account of damages to his crops to the tune of Rs.14,000/- per acre. That complainant approached the ops and requested to pay the claim amount but on the occasions the ops asked him to wait. It is further averred that in the meantime, ops also deducted a sum of Rs.2343/- as premium for insurance of Rabi 2019 crop on 11.12.2019 but complainant did not get claim for damages of crop of Kharif, 2018 whereas some of the villagers have already received compensation within a year. It is further averred that similarly crop of Kharif, 2019 has also been insured by ops by deducting a sum of Rs.3799.36 on 12.07.2019 which crop has also been damaged but no compensation of the same has been given to him despite the fact that other villagers have also received compensation of Kharif 2019 crop from the ops. The complainant is legally entitled to get claim of crop damage for kharif, 2018 and kharif, 2019 at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per acre from ops and non payment of the same clearly amounts to deficiency in service due to which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed; that complaint is hopelessly time barred and that complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of non joinder of District Agriculture department which is very necessary party and is expert in this field and can only explain whether any loss to the crop was happened and can assess the loss to the crop of insured, if any and reason for non payment of the amount of loss to the crop of complainant and that complaint is not maintainable before this Commission because complainant has approached with bad intention even without approaching to District Level Grievance Redressal Commission (DGRC) as prescribed in the operational guidelines of PMFBY scheme and that complainant has neither intimated claim for loss nor supplied any proof of loss in support of claim to the op no.2 which shows that alleged loss of crop had never been occurred. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op is unaware of the kind of Kharif crop sown and loss to the crop as the account particulars are not uploaded on the NCIP and the crop of complainant was not insured with the answering op. Moreover, complainant has not disclosed the name of the crop sown in his fields in his complaint. No premium for the crop of complainant was remitted to the answering op by the nodal bank i.e. op no.1. Thus, the crop of complainant was not insured with the answering op. It is further submitted that according to clause 17.2 of the revised operational guidelines of PMFBY 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 payments of claim to them. That answering op is not liable to pay any claim for loss of crop or any compensation to the complainant. The op no.1 bank who has failed to upload the data on the Crop Insurance Portal is only liable to pay the claim and compensation to the complainant as per meeting dated 14.01.2021. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 prayed for.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.
6. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Virender Kumar, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R1, various clauses of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R2 to Ex.R7 and minutes of meeting Ex.R8. OP no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Rupinder Singh, Manager as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R9 to ExR17.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file. Written arguments on behalf of op no.1 also submitted which has also been perused.
8. The complainant is claiming insurance claim amount for the damage of his crop of Kharif, 2018 and Kharif, 2019 in his 149 kanals 04 marlas of land. The op no.2 insurance company has denied to receive any insurance premium for the insurance of crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 as well as Kharif, 2019. However, the op no.1 bank has placed on file documents Ex.R14 to Ex.R17 which proves that consolidated premium amount of Rs.4,13,823.97 including premium amount of complainant for insurance of his crop of Kharif, 2018 was paid to op no.2. From Ex.R17 i.e. portal entry, it is evident that premium amount of Rs.8143.8 was paid by op no.1 bank to the op no.2 for insurance of crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018, however, in the said entry the op no.1 bank shown paddy crop of complainant in Kharif, 2018 whereas complainant has placed on file copy of Khasra Girdawari Ex.C2 according to which complainant had sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2018. Sh. Rupinder Singh, Manager of op no.1 bank in his affidavit Ex. RW1/A as well as op no.1 bank in its written arguments submitted that though complainant is claiming that he is having 149 kanals 04 marlas of land but as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017, the complainant was not owner in possession of said land at the time of Kharif crop sown in year 2018. They have further submitted that on the basis of the affidavit/ undertaking of complainant that he is cultivating land measuring 149 kanals 17 marlas, the bank sanctioned a limit of Rs.10,00,000/- on 27.12.2012 in good faith but complainant has transferred land measuring 87 kanals fraudulently to Sh. Ranvir Singh son of Sh. Davinder Singh i.e. his grandson vide mutation no. 4728 and at present he is owner of land measuring 62 kanals 04 marlas as per jamabandis Ex.R9 and Ex.R10. But however, as op no.1 bank itself deducted premium amount of Rs.8143.8 for insurance of crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 in his 5.54 hectares of land, therefore, complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount for the damage of his crop of Kharif, 2018 in his 5.54 hectares of land.
9. Now the question arises that what crop was sown by complainant in Kharif, 2018. In this regard complainant has placed on file copy of Khasra Girdawari Ex.C2 from which it is evident that complainant had sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 but op no.1 bank wrongly shown paddy crop of complainant in Kharif, 2018 on the portal without any basis. The op no.1 bank has not placed on file any declaration or loan documents to prove the fact that complainant had ever declared that he will sow paddy crop in Kharif season or that complainant had availed crop loan on the basis of paddy crop. In so far as damage to the cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 of complainant is concerned, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has placed on file report/ letter of Deputy Director of Agriculture department, Sirsa in which it is reported that the average yield of cotton crop of village Mangeana in Kharif, 2018 was 377.06 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Dabwali was 576.36 Kgs. per hectare. Since the average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in village Mangeana was less than threshold yield of block, so as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2018. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 was Rs.72,000/- per hectare. So, as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.1,38,000/- for the loss of his cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 in his 5.54 hectares of land. Though, premium amount was paid to op no.2 insurance company but as op no.1 bank wrongly shown crop name as paddy instead of cotton without any basis. Since the complainant had sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 but op no.1 bank paid premium amount to op no.2 insurance company for insurance of paddy crop, therefore, op no.2 cannot be asked to pay any claim amount for damage of cotton crop since it was not insured with op no.2 and premium for paddy crop was paid to op no.2. Therefore, op no.1 bank is liable to pay the above said claim amount of Rs.1,38,000/- to the complainant as per clause 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY. However, complainant is not entitled to any insurance claim amount for the crop of Kharif, 2019 since complainant has not proved on record any damage to his crop of Kharif, 2019 as he has not placed on file any report of loss of his crop of Kharif, 2019.
10. In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint qua op no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 bank to pay insurance claim amount of Rs.1,38,000/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.1,38,000/- from op no.1 bank alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op no.1 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.2 insurance company stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President
Dt. 14.05.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
