BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 403 of 2019
Date of Institution : 26.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 06.09.2021.
- Birma Devi, aged 64 years wife of Shri Hans Raj,
- Vishnu Bhagwan, aged 40 years son of Shri Hans Raj, both residents of village Burj Bhangu, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Nezadela Khurd Branch, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. JASWANT SINGH…………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amended as under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite party (herein after referred as OP) on the averments that complainant no.1 is owner in possession of 1/4th share and complainant no.2 is owner in possession of 1/6th share of land measuring 85 kanals comprised in khewat no. 439, khatuni no. 531, Sq. No. 9, Killa No. 5(5-8), 6(8-0), 7(2-16), 14(8-2), 15/1(4-13), Sq. No. 10, Killa No. 1 (7-11), 2(7-11), 3/1 (5-0), 8(7-6), 9, 10 (16-0), 11/1 (4-13), 12/1(5-2), 13/1 (2-18) situated in village Burj Bhangu, Tehsil and District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018. That complainants jointly availed a kissan credit card/ crop loan facility of Rs. 1,75,000/- from opposite party by mortgaging their land measuring 33 kanals 17 marlas being 15/36 share out of above said 85 kanals of land, comprising in Khewat No. 439, Khatuni No.531 and said joint loan account of complainants bears account No. 8154880007100. That Govt. of India launched a scheme namely Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for the financial security of the farmers and said scheme is necessary for the loanee farmers and as per scheme, it is the duty of the bankers of farmers to deduct the amount of premium of insurance from the account of the loanee farmer and remit the same to the insurance company. It is further averred that as per clause 6(2) of the Haryana Government Notification No. 1755 agril. 2017/9299 dated 13.6.2017, PMFBY is compulsory for those farmers who have taken crop loan from any financial institutions and as per clause 10(2) of the notification, the last date/ cutoff date for receipt of proposal of farmers/ debit of premium from farmers account in kharif season is 31st July and rabi season is 31st December. That complainants sown cotton crop in kharif, 2017 crop season in their aforesaid 33 kanals 17 marlas land. The amount of premium was to be deducted by the bank out of the above joint account of complainants up to 31.7.2017, but the op bank failed to deduct the amount of insurance premium from their account. That crop of cotton of complainants was damaged due to heavy rain in the village but the complainants could not get insurance claim from insurance company for their crop. It is further averred that Sh. Hans Raj husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainant no.2 is also a co-sharer in above said 85 kanals of land and has availed KCC loan from bank. His crop was got insured with ICICI Lombard Company by deducting premium amount of Rs.5377.53 from his account and he has received the amount of compensation of Rs.1,40,487/- in his account on 31.10.2018 on account of damage to his crop and other insured farmers of village of complainant have also received amount of insurance of their kharif 2017 cotton crop. That complainant no.2 sought information from op under RTI Act about non payment of insurance claim to him and non deduction of insurance premium from their account and in reply to the application, the op replied that KCC account of complainants was not attached with adhar card of complainants, so the amount of premium was not deducted from their account. It is further averred that it is relevant to mention here that on 28.7.2016, op had deducted insurance premium of Rs.2054/- from above KCC account of complainants and then a sum of Rs.1412/- on 10.1.2017, Rs.1543/- on 30.12.2017, Rs.2425.83 on 30.7.2018 and Rs.1665/- on 11.12.2018 had been deducted, so the op took a false and baseless excuse of not deducting the insurance premium from the account of complainants in kharif, 2017 crop season. The bank account of complainants had been duly attached with aadhar card of complainants. That op was under legal obligation to deduct the amount of crop insurance premium from the loan account of complainants and to remit the same to the insurance company. In this manner, the op has failed to discharge its lawful duty, as a result of which complainants could not get insurance claim from the insurance company. As such, complainants have suffered net loss of Rs.59,743/- for 33 kanals 17 marlas of land. The complainants are entitled to get the said amount from op and op is legally bound to make payment of the same to the complainants alongwith interest. The op has committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainants and has caused unnecessary harassment and as such they are also entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the op. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections that complainants have failed to serve prior notice to the op before filing the present complaint, that complainants are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present complaint against the answering op, that complaint is neither maintainable nor sustainable, that complainants have got no cause of action to file the present complaint against answering op, that complainants have not come with clean hands and have concealed the true and material acts from this Forum, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and that complaint is false and vexatious and that no consumer dispute is made out from the facts of complaint and that complaint in hand is hopelessly time barred, that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and that complainants are not the consumers of answering op with regard to insurance facilities of crops of complainant. The answering op has not charged any amount on account of insurance. Hence, complainants are not entitled to any compensation from answering op. On merits, it is submitted that as per Govt. of India guidelines, the above said scheme emphasizes that adhar number is mandatory under the DBT scheme. The terms and conditions of this scheme had also been published in local newspapers as well as in media by the Govt. of India as well as by the banks. The complainants were asked time and again in black and white by answering op to submit their adhar card up to 31.7.2017 to enable the op bank to get their crops under insurance coverage but the complainants have failed to supply the same well in time. Consequently, the crops of complainants could not be insured. It is further submitted that inspite of non supply of adhar card by complainants, the answering op has deducted a sum of Rs.1412/- on 10.1.2017 on account of insurance premium for getting the crops of complainants insured and tried to load the same on the portal of insurance, but transaction put by answering op remained unsuccessful for want of adhar card of the complainants, which was compulsory and ultimately, the amount of premium of Rs.1412/- has been reversed to the account of complainants on 14.6.2017. Since the complainants have failed to supply their adhar card, hence their crops could not be insured and that too due to fault on the part of complainants. It is further submitted that it is correct that complainants have sought information from the answering op through RTI, which was supplied to them in due course. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence.
4. Learned counsel for complainants has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan complainant no.2 as Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Hans Raj son of Sh. Harchand as Ex.CW2/A, copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C1, copy of pass book of complainants Ex.C2, copy of pass book of Sh. Hans Raj as Ex.C3, copy of information received under RTI Ex.C4, copy of application form for agricultural credit Ex.C5, copy of assessment form Enclosure-A as Ex.C6, copy of statement of account Ex.C7, copy of account ledger inquiry Ex.C8, copy of notification dated 24.5.2019 of Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Ex.C9.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for op has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. P.K. Jain, Manager as Ex.RW1/A, copy of letter dated 4.7.2017 Ex.R2 and copy of letter dated 24.7.2017 Ex.R3.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that as per Prime Minister Crop Insurance Scheme which is known as PMFBY launched in 2016, it is mandatory that crop of loanee farmers are got insured by their bankers from insurance companies. The complainants are also farmers and they have availed crop limit from the op bank and as such their crops being loanee farmers are to be compulsory insured by the op bank. The op bank has also deducted premium amounts on various occasions after launching of the above said scheme by the Centre Government for insuring the crops of the complainants, but however, the op bank has failed to deduct the premium amount for insurance of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and in the information supplied by the op bank through RTI sought by complainant no.2, the reason of non deduction of premium due to non linkage of adhar card with account of complainants is false, wrong and baseless because on 28.7.2016 for insuring their crops of Kharif, 2016, the op bank had deducted insurance premium of Rs.2054/- from their KCC account. Then a sum of Rs.1412/- was deducted on 10.1.2017, an amount of Rs.1543/-was deducted on 30.12.2017, an amount of Rs.2425.83 was deducted on 30.7.2018 and an amount of Rs.1665/- was deducted on 11.12.2018. When the op bank has deducted premium for insurance of their crop of Kharif, 2016 and also deducted premium amount for insurance of their crop of Rabi, 2017, Rabi 2018 and Kharif, 2018 which fact is also evident from copy of statement of account Ex.C2, then for non deduction of the premium amount for insurance of crop of Kharif, 2017 on the ground of non linkage of adhar card with account of complainants is clearly a lame excuse and same has been taken to save the skin and in order to avoid payment of compensation to the complainants. The adhar number of the complainants is duly linked with their accounts and they are receiving Govt. Subsidies in their account and therefore, it cannot be said that their adhar numbers are not linked with their account. He has further contended that complainants have not received any letter from the op bank intimating them to submit their adhar cards. The cotton crop of complainants of Kharif, 2017 was damaged and other farmers of their village including Sh. Hans Raj who is husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainant no.2 have received compensation from the insurance company but complainants could not get any insurance claim for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 due to negligence on the part of op bank and op bank is liable to pay compensation to the complainants and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for op has contended that as per guidelines of Government of India, the adhar number should be linked with account of farmers in order to get insurance coverage of their crops and complainants were asked time and again to submit their adhar card up to 31.7.2017 to enable the bank to get their crops insured but the complainants have failed to supply the same well in time. The op bank is not responsible in any way for non insurance of their crop of complainant for the Kharif, 2017. The factum of non supply of adhar card by the complainants is clear from the fact that premium amount of Rs.1412/- deducted by bank on 10.1.2017 from the account of complainants for insurance of their crop was reversed in their account on 14.6.2017 as the transaction remained unsuccessful for want of adhar card of complainants, which was compulsory. He has further contended that since complainants have failed to supply their adhar card, so their crops could not be got insured and same is due to their own fault for which bank cannot be held responsible and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. Having heard rival contentions of the parties, it emerges out that complainants have availed crop loan from the opposite party against their agricultural land measuring 33 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in village Burj Bhangu, Tehsil and District Sirsa which fact is evident from copy of application form for agricultural credit Ex.C5 (pages 1 to 5) and also from copy of assessment form for cash credit/ short term loan Ex.C6. The complainants in order to prove their case have also furnished affidavit of Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan complainant no.2 as Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of the complaint and they have also placed on file copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C1 in order to prove their ownership over the above said land. According to the complainants, as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 was to be compulsorily insured by the op bank from insurance company by deducting premium amount from their KCC account and remitting the same to the insurance company but op bank has failed to do so. The cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainants was damaged but as op bank has not got insured their crop with the insurance company, the complainants have suffered financial loss.
10. The op bank has taken a defence plea that since the account of the complainant was not linked with their adhar number which was mandatory, the op bank so many times asked the complainants to submit their adhar card but the complainants did not supply the same, so their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 could not be insured. But we found no substance in this defence plea of the op bank. Though op bank has relied upon copies of letter bearing No.371/17A dated 4.7.2017 and bearing No.378/17 dated 24.7.2018 allegedly written to the complainants to submit their adhar card before 31.7.2017 in order to get insurance coverage to their crops, but however, it appears that said letters have been prepared later on in order to save the skin of op bank. The said letters are only copies and do not carry any evidentiary value because no copy of relevant page of dispatch register having entries of dispatching the said letters on these dates i.e. 4.7.2017 and 24.7.2017 has been produced on record. It is also not proved on record by op bank by any cogent, convincing and authentic evidence that said letters were ever received by the complainants and they have not produced on record any acknowledgment of the complainants in this regard or any postal receipt on record. The op bank has not produced on record any document showing that either these letters were sent to the complainants through registered posts or through any other mode. Moreover, there is no mention of these letters dated 4.7.2017 and 24.7.2017 allegedly sent to the complainants in the written version of the op. Even in the affidavit of Sh. P.K. Jain, Manager of op bank which has been tendered on 25.2.2020, there is also no mention of these letters dated 4.7.2017 and 24.7.2017 allegedly sent to the complainant. If the said letters dated 4.7.2017 and 24.7.2017 were actually sent to the complainants by the op bank, the op bank should have specifically mentioned in their written version as well as in the affidavit that letters dated 4.7.2017 and 24.7.2017 were sent to the complainants asking them to supply their adhar card but op bank has simply mentioned in the written version which was filed on 7.11.2019 and in the affidavit which was tendered on 25.2.2020 that complainants were asked time and again in black & white by the op bank to submit their adhar card up to 31.7.2017 to enable the op to get their crops under insurance coverage. It appears that the defence plea of op bank regarding non linkage of adhar card with account number is an afterthought and same has been taken in order to save its skin from paying compensation to the complainants because prior to crop season of Kharif, 2017, the op bank had deducted amount of Rs.2054/- from the KCC account of complainants for insuring their crop of Kharif, 2016 i.e. one year prior of Kharif, 2017 and also has been deducting premium amounts for subsequent crop seasons of Rabi, 2017, Rabi, 2018 and Kharif, 2018. It is not understandable that when the op bank was not in possession of adhar card of the complainants, then how the op bank deducted premium amount for subsequent crop seasons of Rabi, 2017, Kharif, 2018 and Rabi, 2018. The op bank has not uttered even a single word that on what date, it came in possession of adhar card of complainants or that on what date, the complainants submitted their adhar card after Kharif, 2017. It is not case of the op bank that op bank was continuously demanding the adhar card from the complainants and as a result of which the complainants have submitted their adhar card after Kharif, 2017 season and as such the op bank has been deducting premium amounts for insurance of their subsequent crops seasons. So, the plea raised on behalf of op bank is not reliable and trustworthy rather from above discussion, the plea of op bank appears to be false, wrong and baseless.
11. No doubt, the amount of Rs.1412/- deducted by op bank from the account of complainants on 10.1.2017 was reversed back in their account on 14.6.2017 as is evident from copy of statement of account Ex.C2 and the plea of op bank in this regard is that op bank deducted the said amount on 10.1.2017 on account of insurance premium for getting the crop of complainants insured and tried to upload the same on the portal of insurance, but transaction remained unsuccessful for want of adhar card of complainants, which was compulsory. But we also found no substance in this contention of op bank because if the premium amount of Rs.1412/- deducted on 10.1.2017 could not be remitted to the insurance company for want of adhar card of complainants, the op bank was under much legal obligation to make constant demand of the adhar cards from the complainants by sending registered letters etc. after 10.1.2017 itself so that there may not be any technical problem in insuring the crops of complainants whose crops were to be compulsory insured being loanee farmers as per above scheme of the Central Government, but the op bank has failed to do so and as discussed above in order to save its skin has produced on record manipulated letters without having been sent to the complainants. Moreover, admittedly the said premium amount was deducted on 10.1.2017 and same was refunded back in the account of complainants on 14.6.2017 i.e. after a period of more than five months. If as per version of op itself, the transaction of that amount remained unsuccessful for want of adhar card of complainants, then also the op should have refunded back the said premium amount of Rs.1412/- deducted on 10.1.2017 immediately after unsuccessful of the transaction but the op refunded back the said amount of Rs.1412/- in the account of complainants only on 14.6.2017 i.e. after period of more than five months which also proves unfair act on the part of op bank. Rather, it also shows cleverness on the part of op bank because first of all if the amount of Rs.1412/- deducted by op bank from the account of complainants on 10.1.2017 could not be remitted to the insurance company for want of adhar card, then op bank was under legal duty to inform the said fact to the complainants well in time and to make demand of the adhar card from them in time but instead of demanding adhar card from the complainants, the op bank refunded back the premium amount in the account of complainants on 14.6.2017 i.e. after period of more than five months. It also speaks about the carelessness and utmost negligence on the part of op bank because the next crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainants for which complainants are seeking compensation for the damage to the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 was also to be compulsorily insured by op bank and when the time of deduction of the amount of premium for insuring crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainants came near, the op bank in order to save its skin cleverly refunded back the premium amount of Rs.1412/-in the account of complainants on 14.6.2017 which was deducted on 10.1.2017. We are also of the considered opinion that op bank has refunded back the premium amount of Rs.1412/- after such a long time only to conceal its mistake. Moreover, the plea of op regarding non linkage of adhar card of complainants with their account and non submission of adhar card by complainants also appears to be false because on one hand the op is saying that complainant did not provide their adhar card so same could not be linked with their account and as such crop of Kharif, 2017 could not be insured but on the other hand, it is admission of the op bank that it also deducted premium amounts from the account of complainant for insurance of subsequent crops after Kharif, 2017 and the op bank has not given any sufficient reason that if the bank was actually was not in possession of adhar card of complainants, then how premium amounts for insurance of subsequent crops of complainants were deducted by it. So, the complainants have duly proved on record about the negligence of the op bank in not deducting the premium amount for insurance of crop of complainants for Kharif, 2017 and complainant is entitled to compensation from the op bank for its fault.
12. Now the question for consideration before us is that whether there was damage to the cotton crop of complainants of Kharif, 2017 and if so, then to what amount of compensation the complainants are entitled for? According to the complainants, husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainant no.2 namely Sh. Hans Raj who is also co-sharer in 85 kanals of land has received insurance claim amount of Rs.1,40,487/- on 31.10.2018 for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. The complainants have also tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Hans Raj as Ex.CW2/A who has also clearly deposed that he has received insurance claim for his damaged crop i.e. amount of Rs.1,40,487/- which was credited in his account. This fact is duly proved from the copy of his statement of account placed on record by complainants as Ex.C3. The complainants have alleged that other farmers of their village have also received insurance claim amount due to damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. The op bank has not led any cogent and convincing evidence to disprove this fact. When said Hans Raj husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainant no.2 has received insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and other farmers of village Burj Bhangu, District Sirsa i.e. of the village of complainants have also received compensation for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017, it is clearly proved on record that there was also damage to the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainants. Now with regard to quantum of compensation to be paid to the complainants, the complainants have stated that they have suffered loss of Rs.59,742/- due to the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in 33 Kanals 17 Marlas of land and they are entitled to the said amount alongwith interest from op bank. The op bank has also not rebutted the said demand of the complainants. So, we are of the considered view that complainants are entitled to said amount of Rs.59,742/- alongwith interest for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses from op bank.
13. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against the op bank and direct the op bank to pay a sum of Rs.59,742/- to the complainants alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above said amount of Rs.59,742/- will carry interest @12% per annum. We also direct the op bank to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainants for harassment and also an amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants within above said period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Commission. Member President,
Dated:06.09.2021. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
