Haryana

Karnal

CC/496/2020

Sachin - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab & Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Sharma

13 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 496 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.10.11.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:13.02.2024

 

Sachin aged about 35 years son of Shri Dalbir Singh, resident of house no.DF-561, Majri Wala Panna, village Raipur Jattan tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. Aadhar card no.8702 8503 7510.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch office, Gharaunda, District Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., having its Branch office at SCO no.388-389, near Guru Harkrishan School, Mugal Canal, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

3.     Deputy Director Agriculture, Department Karnal having its office at opposite old court, near Mahatma Gandhi Chowk, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Vinod Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri S.S.Bajwa, counsel for the OP no.1.

Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for OP no.2.

Shri Surender Project Officer, on behalf of OP no.3.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is an agriculturists and he is owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 5.43 acres situated in village Raipur Jattan, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. The complainant is the account holder of the OP no.1, vide account no.09391600006348. The complainant has also taken insurance policy under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from OP no.2 through the OP no.1. OP no.1 has deducted the premium of Rs.2081.84 on 13.12.2019 from the account of complainant for the insurance of  wheat crop for the year 2020.  The wheat crop of complainant and other inhabitants of the vicinity got destroyed due to local disaster and all the farmers including the complainant had lodged their claim with their respective banks under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The complainant has lodged his claim with the OPs and then as per prescribed rules, an sample survey report was prepared by the office of OP no.3 with the help of their subordinates in very much presence of representative of the OP no.2, in which it has been clearly mentioned that the crop of complainant has suffered 20% loss. Even after assessment of the loss, till date OP no.2 has not disbursed the amount of insurance claim in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs several times and requested for disbursement of the insurance claim but they flatly refused to disburse the same. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay the compensation of damages crop of the land of the complainant i.e. Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of damage till its realization,  to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the OP no.1 bank has deducted the premium from the account of the complainant of Rs.1997.73 dated 13.12.2019 for paying the crop insurance premium of crop and an amount of Rs.139631.81 as consolidated amount inclusive of premium of complainant was paid by the OP no.1 to the OP no.2, vide UTR no.PS1BH19365981161 dated 31.12.2019 which was duly credited in the account no.030855040070002 of OP no.2 i.e. insurance company except this OP no.1 had no role to play in the present complaint. So far as the alleged damaged to the crop of complainant is concerned the liability, if any, to pay the compensation for the same is that of OP no.2 to which the premium was paid by the OP no.1. OP no.1 had acted as per instructions of the Government of India and as per guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna issued by the Department of Agriculture Cooperation and Farmer Welfare, New Delhi. No assurance was given by OP no.1 to the complainant that benefit under the PMFBY will be released to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 because OP no.1 deposited the crop insurance premium to the complainant in time to the OP no.2, so liability to pay the compensation to the complainant is of OP no.2. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no.2. 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 no documentary evidence regarding policy particular/application number/claim lodging/ survey details is mentioned/supplied by the complainant and accordingly the OP is not able to identify the dispute raised by the complainant. In the absence of any application number of insurance and other details, OP is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim. The OP has also tried to track a complainant claim with the bank account no.09391600006348 but OP not able to trace the claim or any grievance for such allegations. 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.             OP no.3 in its reply stated that OP no.1 committed mistake in filing of the GOI portal, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 bank. The detail of the farmer as per record crop village filled by the farmer mentioned on form-3 (survey)  Raipur Jattan and the crop of village on the GOI portal Basat by this deficiency in service insurance company denied the claim.   As per the operational guideline of PMFBY clause no.XVII (2) at that time, if substantial misreporting by bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concern bank only shall be liable for such misreporting.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence  affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of bank account detail Ex.C2, copy of fard jamabandi Ex.C3, copy of bank statement Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, copy of survey report Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 18.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Manish Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of statement of loan account Ex.OP1, copy of insurance premium RTGS enquiry Ex.OP2, copy of guidelines of of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 19.10.2023 by suffering separate statement. 

8.             OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rohit Ranjan Ex.RW1/A, copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R2, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 20.12.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Project Officer Ex.OP3/A, copy of guidelines of PMFBY Ex.OP3/2 and closed the evidence on 07.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

10.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and representative of OP no.3 and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

11.           Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is having a bank account with the OP no.1 and OP no.1 provided crop insurance, under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna through OP no.2. Complainant had sown wheat crop in his 5.43 acres of land and due to local disaster, crop was completely damaged. Complainant approached the Deputy Director Agriculture in this regard. The officials of the Deputy Director Agriculture Department and representative of OPs no.1 and 2 inspected the field of complainant and assessed the loss to the extent of 20%. Complainant requested the OPs several times to make the payment of compensation but they failed to pay the same and prayed for allowing the complaint  

12.           Per contra, learned counsel for the 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, so there is no fault on the part of the bank and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP no.1.

13.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has argued that no documentary evidence regarding policy particular/application number/claim lodging/ survey details is mentioned/supplied by the complainant and accordingly the OP is not able to identify the dispute raised by the complainant. In the absence of any application number of insurance and other details, OP is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

14.           Representative of the OP no.3 submitted that per record, crop village filled by bank village Barsat instead of village Raipur Jattan.  As per operational guidelines of Paradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna clause no.XVII (2) at that time if substantial misreporting by bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such misreporting.

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

 16.          Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and the insurance premium was duly deducted from the account of the complainant by OP no.1 and this fact is also proved from the statement of account Ex.C4.

17.           As per the version of the complainant, his wheat crop was badly damaged due to heavy rainfall and in this regard he had intimated to OPs and applied for compensation. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant, but complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on the file to prove that the crop of the complainant has been damaged due to local disaster and complainant has intimated to the Agriculture Department as well as OPs in this regard. There is also nothing on file to prove that complainant has submitted the claim with the OPs as alleged by him. The case of the complainant is based upon the Survey Report Ex.C6. The Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee to survey the fields the farmers. The Block Agriculture Officer, Gharaunda, Kanugo and representative of insurance company surveyed the fields of the following farmers, which is as under:-

1.     Surender Singh son of Desh pal

2.     Rohtash son of Dalel Singh

3.     Jagbir Singh son of Swroop Singh

4.     Rajesh Panu son of Dalel Singh

The name of the complainant’s nowhere mentioned in the said survey report. As per the said report, the fields of the abovesaid farmers have been inspected. The said report has not been signed by the complainant. The said report is not relates to the complainant, rather it belongs to another farmers. Moreover, complainant has also failed to place on file khasra girdwari of the land to prove that he has sown the wheat crop in his field. Thus, it proves from the said report that the fields of the complainant have not been surveyed by the Committee constituted by the Agriculture Department. Thus, in view of the above, the survey report is not helpful to the complainant.

18.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:13.02.2024                                     

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)

                       Member