Haryana

Kurukshetra

58/2018

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Thakur

11 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    58 of 2018.

                                                                   Date of institution:         16.03.2018.

                                                                   Date of decision: 11.07.2022

 

Jaswinder Singh s/o Shri Jile Singh, r/o village Jalbehda, Tehsil Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                      Versus

 

1. State Bank of Patiala now merged with the State Bank of India, Branch Ismailabad, Tehsil Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Shekhar Thakur, Adv. for the complainant.

                   Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte vide order dated 21.08.2019.

                   Shri Varinder Garg, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant was having about 4 acres land situated in village Jalbehda and on 01.07.2016, he sown corn seeds in one and half acre land. He was maintaining bank account No.65216852105 with OP No.1 branch. On the assurance of OP No.1, he consented for getting insurance of his crops of maize under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) and Rs.1178/- was deducted from his said bank account by OP No.1 and an insurance policy was effected by OP No.2 for the period of 14.07.2016 to 13.11.2016. During the period of 05.08.2016 to 15.08.2016, due to heavy rain, whole crops ruined and in this regard, he intimated to Shri Bimal Mishra, insurance company authorized official. The insurance company officials Shri Sudhir Singh along with Block Agriculture Officer Pehowa visited his agriculture land on 27.08.2016 and prepared inspection report, showing 100% loss of crops of maize and the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.5000/-. He submitted a claim for with the OP party for getting the insured amount, but till date neither his claim was repudiated nor he received the claim amount of loss of 100% crops. The complainant moved a RTI application dated 17.04.2017 to OP No.1 for getting the information regarding deduction of insurance premium and insurance of crops and in response to such RTI, a letter dated 03.05.2017 was issued to complainant showing that no proposal form has got signed from complainant in this respect and OP No.1 as per instructions of Director of Agriculture Haryana insured all loanee farmers of bank without any information/authorization to the complainant and even no copy of insurance policy has been provided to OP No.2 by OP No.1 and thus, the complainant charged for insurance, but never supplied such copy of insurance. The present complaint is well within a limitation period of two years from the date of cause of action arises i.e. loss of crops on 15.08.2016.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement, whereas, OP No.1 failed to appear before this Commission on 21.08.2019 despite receipt of notice from this Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte, by this Commission, on that date.

4.                OP No.2, in its written statement stated farmer/complainant was claiming for losses against maize crop, however, he was not insured with the OP No.2 for maize crop under Khariff 2016 season. As per the coverage detail received from OP No.1, complainant was insured with OP for paddy crop under District Kurukshetra for Khariff 2016 season. As per PMFBY Operational Guidelines, the bank has to mandatorily submit premium to the insurance company along with declaration form of the famers having details of insured unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area insured of farmer, name of farmer, name of crop etc.  As per declaration submitted by the Bank, insurance for the khariff period was done for paddy crop, thus, OP No.2 cannot be held liable for alleged mistake done by the bank, if any. As such, in the absence of coverage, OP No.2 was not in a position to settle the claim as per the scheme operational guidelines i.e. “X Collection of Proposal and Premium from Farmers” and “XVII. Important Conditions/Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks”. As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

5.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, OP No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 and closed its evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was having about 4 acres land situated in village Jalbehda and on 01.07.2016, he sown corn seeds in one and half acre land. The complainant was maintaining bank account No.65216852105 with OP No.1 branch. On the assurance of OP No.1, he consented for getting insurance of his crops of maize under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) and Rs.1178/- was deducted from his said bank account by OP No.1 and an insurance policy was effected by OP No.2 for the period of 14.07.2016 to 13.11.2016. During the period of 05.08.2016 to 15.08.2016, due to heavy rain, whole crops ruined and in this regard, he intimated to insurance company and their team visited his agriculture land on 27.08.2016 and prepared inspection report, showing 100% loss of crops of maize and the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.5000/-. He submitted a claim for with the OP party for getting the insured amount, but till date neither his claim was repudiated nor he received the claim amount of loss of 100% crops.

9.                The learned counsel for OP No.2 argued that the complainant was claiming for losses against maize crop, however, he was not insured with the OP No.2 for the said crop under Khariff 2016 season. As per the coverage detail received from OP No.1, complainant was insured with OP for paddy crop under District Kurukshetra for Khariff 2016 season. As per PMFBY Operational Guidelines, the bank has to mandatorily submit premium to the insurance company along with declaration form of the famers having details of insured unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area insured of farmer, name of farmer, name of crop etc.  As per declaration submitted by the Bank, insurance for the khariff period was done for paddy crop, thus, OP No.2 cannot be held liable for alleged mistake done by the bank, if any. As such, in the absence of coverage, OP No.2 was not in a position to settle the claim as per the scheme operational guidelines i.e. “X Collection of Proposal and Premium from Farmers” and “XVII. Important Conditions/Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks”. As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it. To support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case law titled Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & Anr., Petitioners Versus Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & Anr., Respondents, Revision Petition Nos.2673 of 2013 with Revision Petition No.1226 to 1230, 1287 to 1289, 1947 to 1965, 1967, 1968, 2032, 2033, 2035 to 2046 of 2014 and Revision Petition No.2695 of 2013 in Appeal No.761 of 2012. D.O.D. 03.10.2015 (NCDRC, New Delhi).

10.              There is no dispute that the complainant was maintaining a bank account with OP No.1 branch vide copy of Passbook Ex.C-4. There is also no dispute that crop of complainant was insured under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) for the period of 14.07.2016 to 13.11.2016 and Rs.1178/- was deducted from his said bank account by OP No.1 on 27.7.2016 in this regard and the complainant sown maize (corn) seed in that land.

11.              As per complainant, he sown maize seeds in 1½ acre of his land and due to heavy rains in the month of August 2016, the standing crops had been destroyed and the Agriculture Department assessed the compensation to the tune of 100% vide its report dated 27.08.2016 Ex.C-1 and BAO Pehowa report Ex.C-2. In this regard, he submitted a claim for with the OPs for getting the insured amount, but till date neither his claim was repudiated nor he received the claim amount of loss of 100% crops. In this regard, he moved a RTI application and in response to that, a letter dated 03.05.2017 was issued to complainant. On the other hand, OP No.2 contended that the complainant was not insured with the OP No.2 for maize crop under Khariff 2016 season, rather he was insured for paddy crop, thus, OP No.2 cannot be held liable for alleged mistake done by the bank, if any. In this regard, learned counsel for OP No.2 has drawn attention of this Commission towards “Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers” Ex.R-1 for Kharif – 2016 of village Jal Behra Ex.R-1 (where the complainant sown maize seeds), submitted by OP No.1 bank with OP No.2, wherein, in column “Crop”, there is mentioned “Paddy”. Furthermore, in the Farmers List Ex.R-2, there is also mentioned paddy crop of the complainant. There is no dispute that it is the primarily duty of OP No.1 bank to upload/send the data of farmer concerned on the Government Portal as well as to insurance company regarding PMFBY. Meaning thereby, OP No.1 had insured paddy crop of the complainant and also deducted the premium in this regard and thereafter, uploaded the same information regarding the complainant on the Govt. Website for PMFBY as well as submitted the same to OP No.2. After the loss to the maize crop, as per PMFBY, when the complainant approached OP No.2 for the claim amount, then his claim for maize crop could not be released by OP No.2, because, as per the information submitted by OP No.1, the paddy crop of complainant was insured with OP No.2, due to which, his claim could not be released by OP No.2 on this very ground, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Moreover, OP No.1 had also not appeared before this Commission to deny this fact, as it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.08.2019, passed by this Commission. For the sake of discussion if the crop of maize does not come under the ambit of PMFBY for the particular period, then why OP No.1 deducted the premium amount for that crop. Moreover, the complainant as well as OP No.2 alleged that no insurance policy had been supplied to them, by OP No.1 and due to non-appearance of OP No.1, these contentions of complainant as well as OP No.2 are believable. Since OP No.1 insured paddy crop of complainant instead of maize crop, with OP No.2 under PMFBY and deducted the premium in this regard, as such, which is an act of gross deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. The learned counsel for OP No.2 further contended that OP No.1 bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant, for his own above mistake/wrong. In this regard, he produced copy of “Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) as Ex.R3 and stated that extract part of XVII “Important Conditions/Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks” is relevant, 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.

12.              So, as per above guidelines, for any mistake in uploading the date of farmer concerned on the Government Portal regarding PMFBY, the OP No.1 bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the farmer concerned/complainant. View of this Commission is fully supported by the case law cited (supra) by counsel for the OP No.1, in the case of Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & Anr., Petitioners Versus Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & Anr., Respondents (NC), wherein, it is held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) Crop Insurance Scheme- Insurance premium debited in loan account of agriculturists by the bank by receiving service charges on premium collected from agriculturists – Damage of groundnut crops – Repudiation of claim – Deficiency in service – Complaint allowed against bank in appeal – Legality of – There was relationship of consumer and service provider between agriculturists and bank – As per Clause 19 of guidelines to Financial Institutions, Financial Institutions were to be only responsible for all omissions and commissions committed by them – Prima facie, error has been committed by bank in remitting amount of premium recovered from agriculturists while sending it to insurance company in wrong name of village of complainants – Bank rightly held liable to reimburse all the losses.

13.              In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP No.1 bank has wrongly insured maize crop of complainant and reported the same to the OP No.2 and keeping in view the abovementioned case law cited (supra) as well as Operational Guidelines Ex.R-3, mentioned above, for his mis-reporting/mistake/wrong, OP No.1 bank is liable to pay the claim to the complainant, if any for the loss suffered by the complainant in his maize crop.

14.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? The complainant alleged that he sown maize crop in 1½ acres of his land and suffered 100 % of his crop and this fact is also corroborated by the Inspection Report dated 27.08.2016 of Agriculture Department Ex.C-2. For the price of maize in the State of Haryana in the year 2016-17, we have taken out the “Agricultural Prices in India 2016” from the Internet and as per that on page No.31, in the year 2016-17, the average price of maize in the State of Haryana was Rs.1640/- per quintal in the month of August/September (when the maize crop was sown and destroyed of the complainant). For the average yield, we have taken out “Normal Estimates Area, Production and Yield Selected Principal Crops (April 2022)” and as per that on page No.7, the average production for 2016-17 to 2020.21, in the State of Haryana was 3002 kgs per hectare.

                   3002 kgs/100 = 30.02 quintal per hectare

                   1 hectare = 2.47 acres.

                   30.02/2.47 = 12.15 quintal per acre.   

                  

15.              So, now production for the year 2016-17 in the State of Haryana comes to 12.15 quintal per acre. Since the complainant suffered total 100% loss, as such, the claim amount for 1.5 acres of land of complainant, is calculated as under:-

 

          Yield                                        =       12.15 quintal per acre.

          For 1.5 acres                  =       12.15 X 1.5 = 18.22 quintal of 1.5 acres    Rate per quintal                  =       Rs.1640/-

          Rs.1640/- x 18.22          =       Rs.29,880/-

         

16.              So, in view of above calculation, the complainant is entitled to receive the total claim amount of Rs.29,880/-, from OP No.1, for the total loss suffered by him in 1½ acres of land for the crop of maize. So far as, the complaint filed against OP No.2 is concerned; it may be stated here that no deficiency in service is proved against it, therefore, complaint qua OP No.2, is liable to be dismissed.

17.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OP No.1 and dismiss the same against OP No.2, and direct the OP No.1 to make the payment of Rs.29,880/-, to the complainant. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to deficiency in services on its part along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OP No.1 is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the award amount of Rs.29,880/- shall carry on interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization and the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OP No.1. 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, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:11.07.2022.

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                  DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.