Haryana

Karnal

CC/754/2019

Om Kar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.K. Chauhan

18 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 754 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.07.11.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:18.05.2022

 

Om Kar son of Shri Mange Ram, age 55 years, resident of village Pundri, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 388-389, 1^st floor, DD International, Karan Commercial Complex, Old Mugal Canal, Sector-13, Karnal-132001, through its  Manager.

 

2.     SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Natraj, 301, Junction of Western Express Highway and Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-4000069 through its Authorized person/MD.

 

3.     The Deputy Director Agriculture Karnal, Old Kachari Complex, near P.S.Women, 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 R.K. Chauhan, counsel for complainant.

Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for OPs no.1 &2.

Shri Surender 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 his agricultural land in village Pundri, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. The complainant has got insured his land measuring 17½  acres situated in village Pundri, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal from OPs no.1 and 2, vide crop insurance under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and paid premium of Rs.9996/- on 31.07.2018 from his bank account. Unfortunately, due to some natural climate disaster, the paddy crop for the year 2018 of complainant was ruined/damaged and complainant has fulfilled all the formalities for getting the claim as directed by the officials of the OPs and also a survey report to this effect was prepared by the surveyor to this effect. No claim has been given to the complainant for the damage of his 17½ acres of land despite of several visits and requests of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.09.2019 to OPs, but it also, did not yield any result. 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 i.e. Rs.5,50,979/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.

2.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the complaint and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant never shared policy and application number with insurance company. Hence, insurance company was not able to trace the claim or any grievance for such particulars allegations. Further, the OPs also checked the complainant’s details through the name of complainant i.e. Om Kar, but no such information regarding the particulars of the complainant claim available with the OPs. 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 from 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, OPs are unable to trace any information regarding to the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs  and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.3 in his reply submitted that due to some natural climate disaster, the paddy crop of the complainant for the year 2018 was ruined/damaged and survey report to this effect was prepared. It is further submitted that the insurance company settled the claim amount of Rs.31398.94 but farmer loss was more but farmer loss showed less because of tempering in the survey report actual loss of farmer was 50% in 15 acre. But manipulating survey reports farmer loss was show 25% in 10 acre. So, insurance company is responsible for pending claim amount.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence  affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.C3, copy of statement of bank account of complainant Ex.C4, report of agriculture department Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant on 22.10.2020 by suffering separate statement.

6.             Learned counsel for OPs no.1 and 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai, Deputy Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R1, copy of tabulation sheet Ex.R2, copy of Blockwise average yield and threshold yield Rabi 2019-2020 Ex.R3, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs no.1 and 2 on 24.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             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 24.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

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 the complaint, has vehemently argued that bank of the complainant has deducted the premium amount of Rs.9996/- under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for insuring the crop of the complainant for the year 2018. He further argued that the crop of the complainant was damaged due to heavy rainfall and he approached the Agriculture Department and insurance company, who surveyed the damaged crop of the complainant. As per report of the Agriculture, complainant has a loss to the extent of 50% in 15 acres of land.  Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Learned counsel of OPs no.1 and 2 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, OPs are unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           OP no.3 submitted that complainant informed Agriculture Department regarding the said damages of crop and accordingly the officials of the agriculture and insurance company got surveyed the damaged crop and found that complainant has suffered a loss to the extent of 50% in 15 acres of land. But by insurance company manipulating the survey report, farmer’s loss was shown as 25% in 10 acre. So, insurance company is responsible for the pending claim amount.

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

13.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land and the crop of the complainant was insured with the OPs no.1 and 2 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. It is also an admitted fact that the insurance premium was duly remitted in the account of OPs no.1 and 2 by the Banker of the complainant and this fact is also proved from the statement of account of complainant Ex.C4.

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 and submitted his report Ex.C5/OP3/1, in which it was clealry mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant on 10.10.2018 in village Pundri, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal and observed the damaged crop in 15 acres of land to the extent of 50%. No doubt there is overwriting in the survey report. OP no.3 has specifically stated in his reply that the said overwriting was made by the insurance company and confirmed the actual loss of the complainant was 50% in 15 acres of land as it is the insurance company who collects the report for consolidation to decide the claim of the damaged crop. Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Pundri, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal and same was damaged to the extent of 50% in 15 acres.

15.           In so far as loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 is concerned, the complainant has specifically stated that in Kharif, 2018 season his crop in 15 acres was damaged due to water logging due to heavy rain and he moved an application to the agriculture department with regard to loss of crop. He has also stated that agriculture department and insurance company inspected/ surveyed his damaged crop but insurance company denied to pay any compensation/claim to him while saying that complainant never shared the policy number and application number with the OPs no.1 and 2. The complainant in order to prove damage to his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018 has also placed on record copy of inspection report Ex.C5/Ex.OP3/1, conducted by agricultural department and representative of insurance company which reveals that on 10.10.2018 agriculture department and representative of insurance company inspected the field of complainant in his presence and found that his paddy crop in 15 acres of land was damaged due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report Ex.C5/Ex.OP3/1 that paddy crop of complainant in 15 acres of land in village Pundri, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal was damaged to the extent of 50% and he had suffered loss on account of damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The OPs no.1 and 2 have 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, OPs no.1 and 2 are unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant.  

16.            In the present case, the insurance company OPs no. 1 and 2 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 OPs no.1 and 2 had inspected the field of complainant and confirmed about the loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. Therefore, OPs cannot go back and cannot avoid its liability when its representative has already found loss to the crop of complainant. So, the OPs no.1 and 2 are liable to pay the claim.

17.           Now, we observe the entitlement of the complainant regarding the claim amount for the damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant had sown paddy crop in 15 acres of land and has suffered loss to the extent of 50% in 15 acres of his crop.  As per document issued by Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Haryana, as 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. As per agriculture report Ex.C5/Ex.OP3/1 complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 50% in 15 acres of his crop. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.3,37,500/-(22500x15=3,37,500). The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.5,50,979/- for the damages of his crop, but as per the survey report, the loss comes out  to be of Rs.3,37,500/-only. Further, the OPs no.1 and 2 has not denied the fact that other farmers of village Pundri, Tehsil Gharaunda having their land in this village, have not received any insurance claim amount against damage of their crop. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the abovesaid amount alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. However, no liability of OP no.3 is made out.

18.           In view of our above discussion, we partly allow this complaint and direct the OPs no.1 and 2 to pay the amount of Rs.3,37,500/- alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of present complaint till its actual realization. We further direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.55p00/- as litigation expenses to the complainants. However, complaint against OP no.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:18.05.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member