Haryana

Ambala

CC/185/2020

Braham Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Inss Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Navneet Singh Malhotra

07 Nov 2022

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.         :     185 of 2020

                                                          Date of Institution           :     10.09.2020

                                                          Date of decision    :     07.11.2022.

Braham Pal alias Par Braham Pal aged about 65 years son of Sh. Shamsher Singh, resident of Village Rampur, Sub Tehsil Saha, District Ambala. 

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. SBI General Insurance Company, SCO No. 335-336, 1^st  and 2^nd  Floor, sector 35- B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
2. Indian Bank, Branch Boh, Tehsil Ambala Cantt., District Ambala through its Branch Manager.
3. District Agriculture Officer, Ambala City, District Ambala.
4.  Government of India, through the Collector, Ambala.

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

 

Present:       Shri N.S.Malhotra, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                   Shri P.K.Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

                   Ms. Manjit Kaur, Authorized representative for OPs No.3 and 4.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) and prayed for issuance for directions to the OPs, to pay compensation amount of Rs.86,625/-, for the damage of the paddy crop of the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant , in total Rs.1,86,625/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 18% till realization and also legal expenses. 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is a small farmer.  OP No.1 is the insurer of complainant's crop under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Scheme (PMFBY) floated by OP No.4, through OP No.3 and implemented by OP No.2. OP No.2 was responsible for implementation of the PMFBY scheme to its KCC/ crop loan holders. The complainant is owner of agriculture land measuring 38 Kanal 18 Marla out of Khewat/Khatauni 55/ 66, Khasra No. 16/18 (6-0), Khewat/Khatauni No. 97/124-125-126-127-128-129-130-131-132-133, Khasra No. 27/3 (1-14), 4 (1-6). 27 (7-16), 28 (11-15), Khasra No. 31//17/2 (0-2), 203 (0-19), 151 (0-2), 440 (0-2). 12/2 (7-2), 13 (8-0), 14 (8-0), 15 (3-16), Khasra No.30//9 (8-0), Khasra No. 27//22 (8-0), 23/1 (3-16), Khasra No.16//13 (0-2), 17 (0-6), 19/1 (2-10), 22 (2-12), 23 (7-17). 24 (4-11), 25 (0-6), Khasra No.27/15 (4-9), 6 (4-8), 7 (4-0), 8 (4-4), Khasra No. 30/77 (8-0), Khasra No.27//18 (8-0), 19/1 (1-11), 19/2 (6-9), Khasra No. 27//26 (16-18). Khasra No. 30//8 (8-0), Khasra No. 26//25 (8-0), 211 (8-12), Khewat/Khatauni 98/ 134, Khasra No. 30//2 (7-7), 3 (7-3), 4 (4-18), 12 (8-0), 13 (8-0), 14/1 (4-16), 14/2 (3 4), 20/2 (0-10), Khewat Khatauni 99/ 135, Khasra No. 30//10 (8-0), Khasra No. 31/6/1 (4-8), Khewat/Khatauni 100/ 136, Khasra No. 30/11/3 (6-0) situated within the revenue estate of the Village Rampur, H. B. No. 155, Sub Tehsil Saha, District Ambala. The above described land is jointly owned by the complainant with other co sharers, who are family members of complainant. Thus, under the arrangement of cultivation, the compliant is in cultivating possession of 30 Kanal 0 Marla comprising in Khewat/Khatauni No. 55/ 66, Khasra No. 16//18, 22, 23, 24, 25 Khewat/Khatauni No. 97/124-125-126 Khasra No. 27//4, 5, 6, 12/2, Khewat/Khatauni No. 98/128 and Khasra No. 16//19/1 situated within the revenue estate of the Village Rampur, H. B. No. 155, Sub Tehsil Saha, District Ambala from last more than one decade. OP No.4 launched a policy to insure the crops of the farmers under PMFBY scheme. This scheme was implemented by all the O.Ps through Banks where the farmers have their respective K.C.C. / Loan Account in their name. The complainant has also availed K.C.C./ crop loan facility from OP No.2, i.e. Indian bank, District Ambala by mortgaging his above land for cultivation of crops-vide loan account No. 88137 9038. During the existence of above K.C.C., on 31-07-2018 OP No.2 deducted an amount of Rs. 2,646/- from KCC account, as premium for insurance, without any intimation/ notice to complainant. After getting the knowledge of deduction of amount, complainant approached O.P. No.2 and inquired about the deduction of said amount. Upon this, OP No.2 told that after deducting the amount, the O.P. No.2 has purchased insurance cover for crops of complainant under PMFBY from O.P. No. 1. OP No.2 also told that this scheme is mandatory and whosoever is availing K.C.C./Loan facility, he shall have to insure his crop under PMFBY. The OP No.2 also told to complainant that during the period of insurance, if any loss is caused to the crop of complainant due to natural calamity (Hailstorm, Heavy Rain, Flood or any disease) it shall be covered by PMFBY and in this eventuality loss shall be reimbursed by the Insurer i.e. O.P. No. 1. Upon this complainant demanded a copy of insurance policy and guidelines of PMFBY scheme from OP No.2. OP No.2 assured the complainant that he shall supply the same to complainant in short time. In the month June 2018, complainant had sown paddy crop in his fields measuring 30 Kanal 0 Marla bearing Khewat/Khatauni No.55/ 66, Khasra No. 16//18, 22, 23, 24. 25 Khewat/Khatauni No. 97/124-125-126 Khasra No. 27//4, 5, 6, 12/2, Khewat/Khatauni No. 98/128 and Khasra No. 16//19/1. The complainant spent Rs.10,000/- for purchase of seed, Rs.30,000/- on cultivation of land, Rs.15, 000/- for labour, Rs.30,000/- for purchase of pesticides and fertilizers, Rs.20,000/- for harvesting and transportation etc. Thus complainant spent Rs.1,10,000/-  on cultivation of paddy crop, till September 2018. In the month of September 2018, the crop of complainant was about to be ripen. On 24-09-2018, due to heavy rain there was flood in the area of above land, which damaged the crop sown  in 30 Kanal 0 Marla bearing Khewat/Khatauni No. 55/ 66, Khasra No. 16//18, 22, 23, 24, 25 Khewat/Khatauni No. 97/124-125-126 Khasra No. 27//4, 5, 6, 12/2, Khewat/Khatauni No. 98/128 and Khasra No. 16//19/1 of complainant. On 27-09-2018, when the level of water decreased, the complainant observed that the paddy crop was damaged due to rain/flood water. The complainant immediately approached OP No.3 and submitted his compensation form for damage of crop. On 11-10-2018 damage of crop was assessed by the team of OP No.3 and assessed the loss as forty percent (40%) of total crop. The average yield of paddy in these fields is 30 Quintal per acre or eight Kanal. If the crop was not damaged than the expected yield in 30 Kanal 0 Marla would have been 112.5 Quintal. As crop damage was assessed as 40%, so the complainant suffered loss of 45 Quintal. For the crop of 2018 year, minimum support price was Rs.1925/- per quintal. So complainant suffered a loss of Rs.86,625/- due to heavy rain flood. In February 2019, the complainant visited the office of OP No.3 and inquired about his claim/compensation. But the officials of OP No.3 said that claim is under process and they lingered on the matter on one pretext or other. On 03-07-2019, complainant visited the office of OP No.3 and also gave a written representation about his crop loss/damage claim but to no avail. Thereafter on 06-09-2019, the complainant moved an application under Right to Information Act about his paddy claim. On 16-10-2019, complainant received the reply and was shocked to see that his claim was rejected on false ground i.e. "No claim based on yield basis for insured crop village. Localize late intimation. Farmer intimate as on date 27-09-2018". The OPs did not supply the terms and conditions of PMFBY till today. Furthermore in the present case there is no delay in reporting of loss. The complainant got the knowledge of loss on 27-09-2020 and immediately on the same day the complainant lodged its claim. The repudiation by OPs of claim is wrong and illegal. Thereafter complainant visited several times to the office of OP No.3 and also moved complaints to the OP No.4 but all in vain. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1, appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections with regard to cause of action, territorial jurisdiction, limitation, complaint involves complex questions of fact & law that requires production of voluminous evidence, oral as well as documentary and cannot be decided under summary proceedings before this Commission, the complainant has concealed true facts from this Commission etc. On merits, it was stated that OP No.1 has not erred in offering services to the complainant under the settled business practices of insurance industry and terms and conditions of the Policy. As there was no consumer dispute existing, hence this complaint is not tenable under the Act. The Actual Yield (AY) Kilogram/Hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) Kilogram/Hectare for crop: - Paddy (irrigated) in Village Jatwar (41), Hence the complainant is not entitled for any claim as per PMFBY guidelines. Since, the complainant approached OP No.1 for localize claim on 27-09-2018 whereas loss occurred on 24-09 2018 which was reported after the 24 hours of the date of loss, therefore, the complainant claim was not considered under localize claim due to delay in intimation. Furthermore, the complainant claimed for village- Rampur whereas coverage available on issued policy was for village Jatwar. Crop Insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) which operates on area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as an insurance unit. For all major crops, insurance unit is Gram Panchayat and for minor crops, insurance unit is Taluk. 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 from respective insurance unit at the time of harvesting of the crop through Crop Cutting Experiments (CCES) which are conducted by the State Government. All the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claims are furnished by the Government and accordingly the Insurance Company calculate the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY).  The complainant is not entitled for any damages to the crop. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections with regard to its maintainability etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.2 is a Bank in which the complainant is having his account. As per the sponsored scheme of the Central Govt. the standing crops of the complainant and other farmers were insured by OP No.1 and for the convenience of the policy holders-farmers, the premium of the insurance policies were to be paid to the insurance Co. after deducting the premium amount directly from the accounts of the farmers through their bank in which they are having their account. The complainant has already availed KCC Limit facility from OP No.2 against the mortgage of his agriculture Land in year 2018 and is having his bank account with OP No.2 through which the premium amount of the policy was paid to OP No.1 as per the guidelines of scheme, so that if any compensation is received on this account from OP No.1, 3 & 4, that may be credited in the account of complainant accordingly. If there is any damage to the crops of complainant, OP No.1, 3 & 4 are liable for the same and OP No. 2 is not responsible for the same. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Upon notice, OPs No.3 and 4, appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, time barred; no cause of action.etc. On merits, it has been stated that the role of OPs No.3 and 4 is restricted to forward the application of the complainant. OPs No.3 and 4 are just a channel of liaisoning agency between farmers, Banks and the Insurance Company. Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare is a nodal office of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and O.P. No. 1 & 2 are the autonomous agencies. Bank and Insurance Company works independently. However the inundation application of the complainant was received by OPs No.3 and 4 and the same was forwarded to the O.P. No. 1 without delay. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs No.3 and 4 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant and affidavit of Shri Devinder Singh son of Shri Shamsher Singh, resident of Village Rampur, Sub Tehsil Saha, District Ambala as Annexure CA and CB alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai, Consumer Litigation, SBI General Insurance Company Limited, 46, 3^rd Floor, Karol Bagh, Opposite Metro Pillar No.129, New Delhi as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1/1 to OP-1/5 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Rajesh Dahiya, Branch Manager of OP No.2-Indian Bank, Village Boh as Annexure DW-2/A alongwith documents Annexure DW2/1 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.2. Authorized representative for OPs No.3 and 4 tendered affidavit of Girish Nagpal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ambala as Annexure OP-A  and closed evidence on behalf of OPs No.3 and 4.
7.            We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 and authorized representative for the OP No.3 and 4 and carefully gone through the case file.
8.           It may be stated here that the objection raised regarding territorial jurisdiction is not tenable because as per the provisions of sub-section (d) of Section 34 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a complaint may also be filed at a place, where the complainant resides or personally works for gain. In the present case, admittedly, the complainant is a resident of Ambala City, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. 
9.           As far as objection regarding time barred is concerned, it may be stated here that if the period of two years are counted from September 2018, after excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 09.09.2022 due to COVID 19, in view the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Original Jurisdiction, Miscellaneous  Application  No. 21  of 2022 In  Miscellaneous  Application   No. 665 of 2021 In Suo  Motu  Writ  Petition (C)  No. 3 of 2020, In  Re:  Cognizance  For  Extension of Limitation, that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 (with extension of 90 days) i.e. till the end of May 2020 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings,  this complaint filed on 10.09.2020 is within limitation. Thus, objection taken regarding time barred is rejected.
10.           From the perusal of Jamabandi, Annexure C-8, it is evident that the agriculture land of the complainant is situated in Village Rampur, H.B. No.155, Tehsil Saha, District Ambala. From the document/application Annexure OP-1/1 it is apparent that the paddy crop for the Kharif Season 2018, sown by the complainant was duly insured with OP No.1. In the said document, name of the village has been mentioned as Jatwar (41). In the said receipt it is also mentioned that the same has been created by the Bank.   From the said receipt, it is clear that the bank has mentioned the name of the village of the complainant as Jatwar (41), whereas from the Jamabandi, it is evident that land of the complainant is situated in Village Rampur. Due to change of notified area of the crop of the complainant by the Bank, the insurance company did not pay the claim amount to the complainant. As per Provision XVII (1) & (2) of the Operational Guidelines of PMFBY, which reads as under:-

(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 misreporting by nodal bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting.

11.           Since, the bank has mentioned the wrong name of the village of the complainant, therefore, bank is responsible for the mistake committed by it and is thus liable to pay the amount of loss suffered by him, as per the Provision XVII (1) & (2) of the Operational Guidelines of PMFBY, referred to above. From the perusal of letter dated 27.09.2018, Annexure C-6, it is evident that the loss of the paddy crop for the Kharif season 2018, in the village Rampur was 40%.  It is not disputed that in the year 2018, the paddy crop sown by the complainant in 30 kanal of land was duly insured, therefore, he is entitled to get the compensation for the loss of paddy crop sown in 30 kanal of land. Now coming to the quantum of compensation. It may be stated here that there is nothing on the record to show that as to for which amount the paddy crop of the complainant was insured. As such, under these circumstances, we do not hesitate to conclude that complainant is entitled to get the compensation equivalent to sum insured x 40% of the damaged crop.   Thus, the bank is not only liable to compensate the complainant as mentioned above for the loss of his crop but is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.   
12.           Since, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1, 3 and 4, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against them is liable to be dismissed.
13.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OPs No.1, 3 and 4 and allow the same against OP No.2 and direct it, in the following manner:-

1. To pay the compensation amount equivalent to sum insured x 40% of the damaged crop, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 5% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint i.e 10.09.2020, till its realization.       
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

The OP No.2 further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 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.

Announced on: 07.11.2022.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President