Haryana

Karnal

CC/577/2019

Jitender - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Balbir Singh Chauhan

04 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 577 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.03.09.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:04.11.2022

 

Jitender son of Shri Sarwan, resident of village Guniana, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     SBI General insurance Company Ltd. SCO no.388-389, 1^st floor, Karan Commercial Complex, Old Mugal Canal Road, Karnal-132001, Haryana through its Relationship Manager.

 

2.     Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Nissing, District Karnal.

 

3.     Deputy Director Agriculture Department,  Karnal.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri B.S. Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for OP no.1.

                    Shri Subhash Chander, counsel for the OP no.2.

    Shri Surinder Kumar, Project Officer on behalf of     

    OP no.3

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment 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 three cres of land in village Guniana, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal. 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 which shows in the statement of account. In the season of Kharif, 2018 the paddy crop of the complainant has been damaged due to heavy rain and paddy crop of complainant 1.25 acres of land was damaged/destroyed. Complainant moved an application to Agriculture Department for assessing the loss and accordingly the land of complainant was got inspected by the Assistant Technology Manager, Nissing, Karnal on 09.10.2018. As per survey report, the loss of the paddy crop of complainant was assessed to the extent of 58% in the abovesaid land.  Thereafter, 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 on form 3, Guniana (33) and the crop village on the GOI portal is Kuchputa (38) which are mismatch with the final survey report of the farmer and they express their inability to entertain the claim. 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 the compensation of damages crop of the land 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 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 never shared policy and application number with insurance company. OPs also checked the complainant details through the incomplete application no.9847 which has mentioned in complaint, but no such information regarding the particulars of the complainant’s claim available with the OP. 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, 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 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 an amount of Rs.7431.25 has been given as claim to the complainant through OP no.2 on 07.03.2020 and that has been credited in the account of the complainant by OP no.2. It is specifically mentioned in the clause no.xxii of the Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department notification dated 30.03.2018-The insurance company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the bank independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff data and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the insurance company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the insurance company to pay the claim. Complainant has not been suffering from any kind of loss due to any fault of the OP no.2 and as such the complainant is not entitled any compensation from the OP no.2. 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.             OP no.3 in its reply stated that complainant moved an application to the Agriculture Department regarding the abovesaid damages of crop and accordingly the officials of the agriculture as well as insurance company got surveyed the damaged crop and found that 1.25 acre loss:58%. It is further submitted that the OP bank committed mistake in filing of the GOI portal, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the bank. The detail of the farmer as per record crop village filled by the farmer mentioned in form no.3 (survey) Guniana (33) and the crop village on the GOI portal Kuchhpura (38) by this deficiency in service insurance company denied the claim. As per the operational guidelines 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.C1, copy of survey report Ex.C2, copy of statement of account Ex.C3, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2014-2015 and closed the evidence on 21.02.2022 by suffering separate statement. 

7.             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 tabulation sheet Ex.R1, copy of five year blockwise average yield and threshold yield Ex.R2, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 31.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.      

8.             Learned counsel for OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Raj Kumar Branch Manager Ex.OP2/A, copy of account ledger inquiry Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on 07.09.2022 by suffering separate statement

9.             OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Project Officer Ex.OP3/A, copy of survey report Ex.OP3/1, and closed the evidence on 22.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

10.           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.

11.           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 Assistant Technology Manager, Nissing, Karnal on 09.10.2018. As per survey report, the loss of the paddy crop of complainant was assessed to the extent of 58% in 1.25 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 on form 3, Guniana (33) and the crop village on the GOI portal is Kuchputa (38) which are mismatch with the final survey report of the farmer and they express their inability to entertain the claim and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

12.           Per-contra, learned counsel of OP no.1 argued 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 from respective insurance unit at the time of harvesting of the crop through crop cutting Experiments (CCEs) which are conducted by the State Government. He further argued that all the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claim 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. He further argued that complainant never shared the policy and application number and in the absence of application number, OP is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

13.           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. He further argued that an amount of Rs.7431/- has been passed by the OP no.1 and on 07.03.2020 said amount has been credited in the account of the complainant by OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP no.1.

14.           OP no.3 submitted that the crop of the complainant was damaged due to water logging. OP no.3 inspected the fields of complainant on 09.10.2018 and prepared the report while assessed the damaged to the extent of 58% in 1.25 acres of land of the complainant.

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

16.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land in village Guniana 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. It is also an admitted fact that during the pendency of the complaint an amount of Rs.7431/- was credited in the account of complainant, vide account ledger enquiry Ex.OP2/1.

17.           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 and submitted his report Ex.C2/OP3/1, in which it clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant in village Guniana and observed that damaged crop to the extent of 58% in 1.25 acres of land.  Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Guniana and same was damaged to the extent of 58% in 1.25 acres of land but the complainant name was not found in the insurance portal. The insurance company denied to pay any compensation/claim to complainant while saying that complainant never shared the policy number and application number with the OP no.1. OP no.3 has also placed on record copy of inspection report Ex.C2/OP3/1, conducted by agricultural department and representative of insurance company which reveals that on 09.10.2018 agriculture department and representative of insurance company inspected the field of complainant and found that his paddy crop in 1.25 acres of land was damaged due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report Ex.C2/OP3/1, that paddy crop of complainant in 1.25 acres of land in village Guniana was damaged and he has suffered loss, on account of damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The OP no.1 has not paid claim amount to the complainant on the ground that the complainant never shared the policy and application number and in the absence of application number, OP no.1 is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant. We found no substance in the contention of the OP. Moreover, there is a contrary version of OPs no.1 and 2 with regard to paying the claim amount. As per the version of the OP no.2 an amount of Rs.7431/- has been credited in the account of the complainant. Moreover, the claim amount was to be paid by the OP no.1 being insurer but OP no.1 is silent in this regard.

18.           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.

19.           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.”

20.           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.

21.            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. Whereas complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of OP no.1 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 by surveying the crop of complainant. So, the insurance company i.e. OP no.1 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.

 22.          Learned counsel for OP no.1 has contended that complainant never shared policy and application number and in the absence of application number, insurance company is unable to trace any information regarding the claim of complainant. As per clause 24.2 of guidelines of PMFBY regarding collection of proposal and premium from farmers according to which in case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/ branch in case of compulsory farmer’s coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting. But as already discussed, there is nothing on file to prove the said plea of OP no.1 as OP no.1 has not led any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that there is any misreporting on behalf of bank for which OP no.2 bank can be held liable. Furthermore, there is nothing on file to prove that insurance company has verified the data of the complainant as provided by the bank or found any misreporting on the part of OP no.2 bank. Moreover, insurance company cannot take the shelter that complainant never shared the policy number and application number specifically when the Loss Assessor of the OP was very much present at the time of survey of the damaged crop. So, only insurance company i.e. OP no.1 liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, no liability of OPs no.2 & 3 is made out.

23.           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 1.25 acres of land and had suffered loss to the extent to the extent of 58% 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, as also produced in many another cases, 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 58% in 1.25 acres of land. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.32,625/-(26100x1.25=32,625/-). Hence, the complainant is entitled for the said amount. It is evident from the account ledger enquiry Ex.OP2/1, complainant has already received Rs.7431/- and this fact has not been denied by the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the remaining amount of Rs.25194/-(32,625-7431) alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. However, no liability of OPs no.2 and 3 is made out.

24.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 i.e. insurance company to pay the amount of Rs.25,194/- 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 OPs no.2 and 3 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:04.11.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member