Haryana

Karnal

CC/399/2020

Iqbal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

G.P. Singh

16 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 399 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.02.10.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:16.02.2023

 

Iqbal Singh son of Shri Sahab Singh, resident of village Alipur Viran, Tehsil and District Karnal. Aadhar card no.6116-3286 4729. Mobile no.9355708669.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     SBI General insurance Company, First floor, B.D. International,   SCO no.388-389,  Karan Commercial Complex, near Guru Harkishan School, Old Char Chaman, Karnal through its Manager.

 

2.     State Bank of India, Nissing, District Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Baljeet Chawla, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for OP no.1.

                    Shri Pankaj Malhotra, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

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’) on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and having sixteen acres of land in village Alipur Viran, Tehsil and District Karnal, vide Jamabandi for the year 2016-2017. The complainant is having an account no.36698574510 with OP no.2. The kharif crop standing in the land of the complainant was got insured by the OP no.2 through OP no.1 and a premium of Rs.9231.6 was deduced from the abovesaid account of the complainant and the sum insured was Rs.4,61,580/-. Similarly, the Rabi crop standing in the land of the complainant was also got insured by the OP no.2 through OP no.1 and a premium of Rs.6264.3 was deducted out of the abovesaid account of the complainant and the total sum insured was Rs.4,17,620/-. The abovesaid premium was deducted from the account of complainant in the year 2018. In the year 2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged due to excessive rain and thereafter, the survey was conducted on 07.10.2018 to assess the damage caused to the crop. The loss was assessed by a committee consisting of representative of OP no.1 Assistant Technology Manager, Nissing, District Karnal and the loss resulting to the crop of the complainant was assessed as 10 acres +50% of the total crop. Thereafter, complainant lodged the claim with the OPs, seeking compensation for the loss of his crop, under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and submitted all the requisite documents. However, OP no.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the village of the complainant in the Government portal mentioned as Guniana (33) instead of Aliur Viran(60). The repudiation of the claim of the complainant is totally illegal, arbitrarily and not binding on the right of the complainant as complainant had no role to pay in uploading of said record, thus the complainant cannot be deprived of the compensation due to the negligence on the part of the OPs. The rate of P.R. rice crop in the year 2018 was 1770/- per quintal. The average yield of the crop per acre was 32 quintal. Thus, the total loss comes to Rs.2,83,200/- (160x1770=2,83,200). Non-releasing of the claim in respect of the paddy crop and by repudiating the claim, complainant suffered mental pain, agony as well as financial loss. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.2,83,200/- as  compensation of damages crop of the complainant with interest from the date of damage till its realization, to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, torture, harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant OP received the premium from the OP bank and issued the policy no.202007-0000-00 alongwith application no.040106181121015386201 to complainant for crop-Paddy as per the date available on PMFBY crop portal. It is further pleaded that there was no localized claim intimation received. Therefore, OP’s company assessed the complainant’s claim as per AT/TY basis (shortage of yield basis) the assessed loss Rs.44873.31 has been credited in the State Bank of India branch at Nissing.

Details for paddy crop-

Crop         District    Village         Farmer        Actual        Threshold    Claim

                                                  Type             Yield         Yield 

                                                            (AY)         (TY)

Paddy                Karnal      Guniana(33)      -         3008.70      3332.7          0

                     

Further, it is also important to note that the complainant claim for paddy crop in village of Alipur, whereas the coverage available on the policy for village Gunana (33). Furthermore, the OP has booked the policy through the information uploaded on crop portal by the intermediaries, there has been no negligence on the part of the OP. Even after, the insurance company has settled the claim as per information provided on the portal. It is further pleaded that crop insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna which operates area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as in insurance unit. For all major crops, insurance unit is Gram Panchayat and for minor crops, insurance unit is Taluk. 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, as the actual yield (AY) kilogram/hectare was less than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy in village Gunana (33), which is respectively crop insured by the insurance unit of complainant, the complainant is entitled to get the benefit under the policy. 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 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has mortgaged his land with the OP as collateral security for the loan advanced to him. The bank has remitted the premium to OP no.1 alongwith necessary particulars of the complainant and the land in question. No intimation regarding paddy crop of complainant was damaged ever received by the OP. It is further pleaded that in case the loss is proved, a fact disputed then the same has to be paid by the OP no.1. The alleged ground of repudiation of the claim of complainant is illegal, if at all the particulars regarding the name of the village of complainant was wrong, then OP no.1 should have return the premium within 60 days of its receipt failing which the proposal having being accepted, the contract is complete and the policy having being generated, the OP no.1 is liable to pay the claim. There is no deficiency in service 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.2.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, bank passbook Ex.C1, copy of account statement Ex.C2, copy of inspection report Ex.C3, copy of email dated 11.05.2019 Ex.C4, copy of BUG Report Ex.C5, copy of application receipts Ex.C6 and Ex.C7, copy of statement of account Ex.C8, copy of letters to DDA, Karnal Ex.C9 and Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 19.04.2022 by suffering separate statement. 

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence, affidavit of Jitendera Dhabhai, Deputy Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of insurance acknowledge receipt Ex.R1, copy of tabulation sheet Ex.R2, copy of five year blockwise average yield and threshold yield Ex.R3, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 07.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.  

7.             Learned counsel for OP no.2 suffered a statement to the effect that OP no.2 does not want to tender any evidence and closed the evidence on 07.07.2022.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complainant, has vehemently argued that complainant has obtained the insurance policy under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from OP no.1 through OP no.2. The premium of the insurance of Khariff 2018, was also deducted from the account of complainant and same was remitted in the account of insurance company. In the season of Kharif, 2018 the paddy crop of the complainant has been damaged due to heavy rain and complainant moved an application to Agriculture Department for assessing the loss and accordingly the land of complainant was got inspected by the Committee on 07.10.2018. As per survey report, the loss of the paddy crop of complainant was to the extent of 50% in 10 acres of land. Complainant submitted the application for the insurance claim with the OPs, but they denied the claim of the complainant by stating that as per record, the crop village filled by the farmer mentioned as Guniana (33) instead of village Alipur Viran. For that there is no fault of the complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per-contra, learned counsel of OP no.1 while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that, as per the PMFBY: where Actual Yield was more than Threshold Yield, in such cases the farmers are not liable for compensation. In the present case the Actual Yield (AY) was more than Threshhold yield (TY) in village Gunana, hence the complainant is not liable for any compensation. He further argued that as per insurance acknowledgement receipt Ex.R1 i.e. screen shot of portal, the name of village is mentioned as village Gunana by OP no.2 instead of village Alipur, and there is no loss in village Gunana, hence the claim of the complainant was rightly declined. Thus, there is no fault on the part of the OP no.1 i.e. insurance company and OP no.1 is not liable for the wrong act committed by OP no.2 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           Learned counsel of OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that after deduction of premium amount, under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.2 had remitted premium in the account of insurance company, so there is no fault on the part of the bank/OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP no.1.

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

13.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land in village Alipur Viran and had obtained crop loan from OP no.2 (bank) and OP no.2 had deducted premium amount for insurance of crop on behalf of OP no.1 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. It is also an admitted fact that the insurance premium was duly remitted in the account of OP no.1 by the OP No.2.

14.            Due to damage of crop, complainant moved an application to Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal for inspection of the damaged crop. The team of Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, has inspected the crop of complainant on 07.10.2018 and submitted his report Ex.C3, in which it is clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant in village Alipur and observed that damaged crop to the extent of 50% in ten acres of land.  Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Alipur and same was damaged to the extent of 50% in ten acres of land but name of village has been wrongly mentioned by OP no.1 bank in the insurance portal as village Guniana instead of Alipur Viran,. The OP no.1 has not paid claim amount to the complainant on the ground that there is no loss in village Guniana. The OP no.1 has also placed on file copy of insurance acknowledge receipt Ex.R1 in which name of village  mentioned as Guniana, which are mismatch with the final survey report of the farmer.

15.           Moreover, OP no.2 bank has also relied upon the minutes of the meeting to discuss the pending dispute of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) held on 02.07.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri Ajit Bala Ji Joshi, IAS Director General Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana and Minutes of the meeting to discuss the pending dispute of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) held on 11.09.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri D.K. Jain, Zonal Manager (PNB) and Convener SLBC Haryana, in the abovesaid meetings, it was resolved that cases where farmers record mismatch and premium paid by Banks to insurance company on time, whereas insurance company has not returned premium to bank in time, insurance company will pay the claim to farmers as per farmer record.

16.           In rebuttal, learned counsel for OP no.1 has relied upon   the minutes of 4^th Meeting of State Level Grievance Committee held on 14.1.2021, in which it has been resolved/ decided that in case of Village Name Mismatch, the concerned bank branch is liable to pay the claim of affected farmers. This observation has been given by the Committee on the basis of clause no.XXIV of PMFBY for the year Kharif 2016 to Kharif 2018 of Operational Guidelines and clause no.17.2 for the year Rabi 2018-19, Kharif-2019 and Rabi 2019-20 of Revised Operational Guidelines of PMFBY. The clause 17.2 of the Operational Guidelines of PMFBY is reproduced as under:-

“Consolidated declaration/ proposal formats to be submitted physically/ electronically by Nodal banks/ Branches shall contain details about Insurance Unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area insured of the farmers, number and category of farmers covered (small and marginal or other) and number of farmers under other categories (SC/ST/others)/ Women alongwith their bank account details etc. (bank/ their branches) as per the application for provided on the National Crop Insurance Portal. Banks are required to upload the insured farmers’ data mandatorily on the National Crop Insurance Portal. No other platform shall be used for uploading/ submission of farmers’ data. Those farmers whose data is uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal shall only be eligible for insurance coverage and accordingly the premium subsidy will also be released. 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 payment of claims to them.

                Further relevant portion of clause No.24 of the revised operational guidelines of PMFBY regarding Important Conditions/ Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks is as under:-

24.1 “Insurance Companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intermediary or directly. In case of 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.”

24.2  “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.”

17.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.2 has submitted that abovesaid Minutes of the meeting has already been challenged by the concerned Banks before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the verdict of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court is still pending. Thus the said minutes of meetings are not applicable upon the OPs.

18.           In the present case, the insurance company OP no.1 which has retained the premium amount of complainant for insuring paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018, and has not returned the premium amount to bank in time, is liable to pay insurance claim for the damage of crop to the complainant hence the plea of OP no.1 that actual yield was more than threshold yield in village Guniana is not relevant. Furthermore, the OP no.1 has also not proved by cogent and convincing evidence that actual yield of village of complainant i.e. Alipur was more than the threshold yield. Furthermore, the crop of the complainant got surveyed individually not consolidated by the Agriculture Department, which has been proved from the survey report Ex.C3. Complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of insurance company OP no.2 inspected the field of complainant and confirmed about the loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. Therefore, OP no.1 cannot go back and cannot avoid its liability when its representative has already found loss to the crop of complainant.  So, the insurance company OP no.1 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, no liability of OP no.2 is made out.

19.           Now, we observe the entitlement of the complainant regarding claim amount for the damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant had sown paddy crop in ten acres of land and has suffered loss to the extent to the extent of 50% in the said land. The said report has not been disputed by the insurance company. As per document/letter issued by Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Haryana, the gross yield of paddy/kharif in the year 2018, in District Karnal is to the tune of Rs.45,000/- per acre. Complainant suffered loss to the extent 50% in ten acres of land. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.2,25,000/-(22500x10=2,25,000/-). The complainant has claimed Rs.2,83,200/- but as per survey report loss comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Hence, complainant is entitled for Rs.2,25,000/- alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. However, no liability of OPs no.2 is made out.

20.           OP no.1 has taken a plea that OP no.1 has assessed the  claim of complainant for an amount of Rs.44873/-, which has been credited in the State Bank of India branch at Nissing, but complainant has specifically denied this fact. The onus to prove its version lies upon the OP no.1 but OP no.1 has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. No statement of account has been placed on file to prove its version. Hence, plea taken by the OP no.1 has no force.

21.           In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 i.e. insurance company to pay the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of present complaint till its actual realization. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complaint against OP no.2 stands dismissed. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Dated:16.02.2023                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member