Haryana

Kurukshetra

155/2018

Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Gen Ins - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.HANDA

12 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    155 of 2018.

                                                                   Date of institution:         19.07.2018.

                                                                   Date of decision: 12.05.2022

 

Rajinder Singh s/o Shri Baldev Singh s/o Shri Wadhawa Singh, r/o village Saina Saidan, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, SCO No.147-148, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160009  through Area Manager, Govt. Business North.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Pipli Kurukshetra Road, near Pooja School, Pipli through its Branch Manager.
3. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Morthali, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.
4. Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare, Government of Haryana Kurukshetra.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri H.S.Handa, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri V.K. Garg, Advocate for OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 ex-parte.

                   Shri Issam Singh, Advocate for OP No.3

                   Shri Garv Bathla, Project Officer for OP No. 4.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is resident of Village Saina Saidan and an agriculturist by profession having a account No.81368800027713 with the OP No.3. He is having 7 acres of land at village Julmat, Tehsil Pehowa, Distt. Kurukshetra and had sown paddy crop in season of 2016-17 on his above mentioned land and got insurance cover under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna from the OP No.1 and 2 through the OP No.3 and the premium for the Kharif 2016 was paid to the Ops No.1 and 2. He incurred Rs.10,000/- expenses on the sowing the paddy crop.  There was heavy rain during the period of August 2016 to September 2016 and the paddy crop of the complainant has been destroyed in the said rains.  In the month of September 2016, OP No.3 as well as DDA Kurukshetra has been duly about the loss of crops and a team of consisting of Block Development Officer, Pehowa alongwith coordinator of OP No.1 and 2 visited the fields of the complainant and reported that there is 100% loss to the crops sown by the complainant in the mortgaged land measuring 7 acres due to storage of water.  At the time of visit of the team, water logging was at the spot. Videography and photographs were taken by the representatives of OP No.1 and 2. Thereafter, complainant visited the OP No.1 to 3 several times and requested to award the compensation but nothing has been done.  However, a list has been supplied by the bank in which it has been recited that loss of paddy crops due to heavy rains has not been intimated to the insurance company well in time and till today no compensation has been paid by the Ops to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs No.1, 3 & 4 appeared and filed their respective written statements. OP No.2 failed to appear before the Commission and was proceeded against ex parte.

4.                OP No.1 in its written statement, raised preliminary objections regarding Coverage of farmers; Compulsory Component; Voluntary Component; Coverage of Crops; Coverage of Risks and Exclusions; Average Yield Estimation Status; Not maintainable for want of jurisdiction; Limited Coverage as per scheme; Yield based claims are decided by Government; privity of contract; impleading of necessary parties; Complicated facts and law of contract. It is further submitted that the role of insurance company is only to pay the claim in accordance with scheme of PMFBY and thus insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant.  In the present case, name of insured village is SIANA SAIDAN, but complainant is claiming for village ZULMAT, which has never been insured with the insurance company, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed on this very ground.

5.                OP No.3 in its written statement raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action. It is further submitted the matter regarding loss of crops is stated to be a matter of record but it is stated that the answering OP no.3 has no fault and having no role in the present complaint, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP.

6.                The OP No.4, in its written statement, stated the farmer did not give any intimation in DDA office Kurukshetra during Kharif 2016. Hence, claim arised during Kharif 2016 on the basis of average yield, because, average yield 1879.22 is less than threshold yield 3269.88, so claim arised Rs.32649 per hectare, but claim of concerned farmer held due to wrong bank data, because, Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank Morthali sent the farmer village name Saina Saidan instead of Julmat, hence bank is responsible to pay the claim.

7.                The complainant, in support of his case, tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence.

8.                On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R6 and closed its evidence. The OP No.3 failed to lead any evidence and its evidence was closed by Court order. The OP No.4 tendered affidavit Ex.RW4/A along with document Ex.R-1 and closed its evidence.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and is having a account No.81368800027713 with the OP No.3. The complainant had sown paddy crop in season of 2016-17 on his land measuring 7 acres and has got insurance cover under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna from the OP No.1 and 2 through the OP No.3 and the premium for the Kharif 2016 was paid to the Ops No.1 and 2. The complainant incurred Rs.10,000/- expenses on the sowing the paddy crop.  There was heavy rain during the period of August 2016 to September 2016 and the paddy crop of the complainant has been destroyed in the said rains. In the month of September 2016, OP No.3 as well as DDA Kurukshetra has been duly about the loss of crops and a team of consisting of Block Development Officer, Pehowa alongwith coordinator of OP No.1 and 2 visited the fields of the complainant and reported that there is 100% loss to the crops sown by the complainant in the mortgaged land measuring 7 acres due to storage of water. Thereafter, complainant visited the OP No.1 to 3 several times and requested to award the compensation but nothing has been done. 

11.              The learned counsel for the OP No.1 argued that the role of insurance company is only to pay the claim in accordance with scheme of PMFBY and thus insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant.  In the present case, name of insured village is SIANA SAIDAN, but complainant is claiming for village ZULMAT which has never been insured with the insurance company. To support his contentions, he placed reliance on 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).

12.              The learned counsel for OP No.3 argued that there is no deficiency on its part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

13.              The representative of OP No.4 argued that the farmer did not give any intimation in DDA office Kurukshetra during Kharif 2016. Hence, claim arised during Kharif 2016 on the basis of average yield, because, average yield 1879.22 is less than threshold yield 3269.88, so claim arised 32649 per hectare, but claim of concerned farmer held due to wrong bank data, because, Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank Morthali sent the farmer village name Saina Saidan instead of Julmat, hence bank is responsible to pay the claim

14.              We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record.

15.              The moot question before this Commission is whether the OPs committed any act of deficiency in service by not releasing the claim amount to the complainant, causing mental agony, harassment and financial loss to the complainant, making him entitled to the relief, as claimed or to what extent and against whom?

16.              There is no dispute between the parties that complainant is an agriculturist of village Saina Saidan and is holding a KCC account with OP No.3 bank. There is also no dispute that a sum of Rs.2695/- was deducted by OP No.3 on 27.07.2016, from the account of complainant, on account of premium for Group Insurance Policy of crop for the season 2016-17, which was paid by OP No.3 to OPs No.1 & 2. It is further admitted fact on record that there was loss of crop to some extent in village Zulmat, as a result of which, complaints were lodged with concerned authorities and as a result of which, team of the officials of agriculture department visited said village and assessed average yield and threshold yield, vide “Village wise Tabulation sheet of sum insured as claim under PMFBY for Kharif District Kurukshetra” Ex.C-4. Consequently, claim was lodged by the complainant with the insurance company OPs No.1 & 2, who refused to pay the same, on the ground that the complainant is claiming for village ZULMAT, which has never been insured with the OPs No.1 & 2 insurance company. The complainant also taken the same plea in his complaint for not releasing his claim amount.

17.              It is evident from the record that the complainant is resident of village Saina Saidan and he sown paddy crop in season of 2016-17 in his 7 acres land situated at village Zulmat, Tehsil Pehowa, Distt. Kurukshetra and he submitted his loss claim for his land situated in this village. The OP No.1, to support its contention, produced group “Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers”, submitted by the OP No.3, with OPs No.1 & 2 as Ex.R-1, and in its column “SCHEDULE”, village name of complainant and others shown as Siana Saidan, by the OP No.3. To support his contentions, the OPs No.1 & 2 further produced document “Operational Level Findings” Ex.R-3, wherein, village name of complainant was shown as Siana Saidan. From the above submissions of the parties, we found that the bone of contentions between the parties is qua wrong declaration of village of complainant, made by the OP No.3 to OPs No.1 & 2, which shifts the liability to pay the compensation from one party to another party. There is no dispute that it was the primarily duty of only OP No.3 to upload the data of farmer concerned on the Government Portal regarding PMFBY. From the above facts, it is proved that the complainant suffered loss to his land situated in village Zulmat, but he was deprived from getting compensation from the insurance company due to wrong declaration submitted by OP No.3 bank to OPs No.1 & 2, which is an act of grave deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.

18.              The OP No.1 further contended that the OP No.3 bank is liable to pay the amount of his claim, if any, to the complainant, for his own above mistake/wrong declaration. To support his above contentions, it produced document Ex.R-6 of Operational Guidelines on the case file and its Para No.XVII is relevant, which reads as under:-

                   XVII. Important Conditions/Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks

          1.       Insurance companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intermediary or directly. Any loss in transit due to negligence by these agencies or non remittance of premium by these agencies, the concerned bank/intermediaries shall be liable for payment of claims.

          2.       In case of any substantial misrepresenting by nodal bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting.

          3.       Mere sanction/disbursement of crop loans and submission of proposals/declarations and remittance of premium by farmer/bank, without explicit intent to raise the crop, does not constitute acceptance of risk by insurance company.

19.              So as per above Operational Guidelines, the OP No.3 bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant, for his own above mistake/wrong declaration. View of this Commission is fully supported by the case law cited (supra) by counsel for the OP No.1, in the case of Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & Anr., Petitioners Versus Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & Anr., Respondents (NC), 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.

20.              In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP No.3 has wrongly reported the name of village of the complainant to the OP No.1 as Siana Saidan instead of Zulmat and keeping in view the abovementioned case law cited (supra) as well as Guidelines Ex.R-6, mentioned above, for his mis-reporting/mistake in uploading the wrong data of complainant on the Govt. Portal of PMFBY, the OP No.3 is liable to pay the claim of the complainant, if any.

21.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? The complainant alleged that he sown paddy crop in season of 2016-17 in 7 acres of land and in this regard, the complainant produced jamabandhi for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 as Ex.C-1 and Ex.C2 on the case file and these documents are not denied by the OPs in any manner. As per affidavit filed by the OP No.4 Ex.RW4/A, the Threshold Yield per hectare of village Zulmat (village of complainant) was 3269.88 per kg and claim amount was Rs.32649/- per hectare. Since as per record, the complainant had sown paddy crop in 7 acres of land, therefore, the claim amount, to be paid to the complainant, is as under:-

                   Claim amount                =       Rs.32649/- per hectare

                   1 Hectare                       =       2.47 acre.

                   Rs.32649 / 2.47             =       Rs.13218.21 per acre

                   Rs.13218.21 x 7 acres   =       Rs.92527/-

         

22.              So, in view of above calculation, the complainant is entitled to receive the total claim amount of Rs.92527/-, from the OP No.3, for the loss suffered by him in 7 acres of his land. So far as, the complaint filed against OPs No.1, 2 & 4 are concerned; it may be stated here that no deficiency in service is proved against them, therefore, complaint filed against OPs No.1, 2 & 4, is liable to be dismissed.

23.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OP No.3 and dismiss the same against OPs No.1, 2 & 4, and direct the OP No.3 to make the payment of Rs.92527/-, to the complainant. The OP No.3 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.3 along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OP No.3 is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OP No.3. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:12.05.2022.

    

 

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.