BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 176 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 06.08.2020.
Date of Decision : 08.10.2024.
Mahender Kumar aged about 51 years son of Shri Ram Kumar, resident of village Madho Singhana, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. State Bank of India, Village Madho Singhana, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Head Office: Plate B & G, 5th Floor Office Block I, East Kidwai Nagar, Opp. AIIMS Gate 2, New Delhi- 110023, through its authorized person.
3. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Ist Floor, Dharma Satya Plaza, Near SBI ABD Branch, Dabwali Road, Sirsa through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. R.P. Kaswan, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Babbar, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Opposite party no.3 already given up.
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).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is agriculturist and is having about 51 kanals 13 marlas of land being 1/5 share of land measuring 258 kanals 07 marlas situated at village Baruwali 2nd Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa. He has availed KCC facility from op no.2 on his above said land through account number 31252603636. That for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 as per crop insurance scheme, a sum of Rs.2505/- was deducted by op no.1 from the account of complainant on 11.07.2019 and op no.1 got insured the cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 with ops no.2 and 3. It is further averred that said cotton crop in the village including the crop of complainant was damaged on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. two lacs and some of the villagers have already received compensation. It is further averred that complainant approached the ops and requested to pay the claim but they asked him to wait and later on he came to know that he has not received the claim as his land was shown in village Madho Singhana instead of village Baruwali IInd by op no.1 bank and similarly paddy crop instead of cotton crop was got insured and ops no.1 to 3 have done so for causing loss to the complainant and as such ops have caused gross negligence, deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops no.1 and 2 appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as answering op as per policy deducted requisite insurance premium amount from the account of complainant and as per policy got deposited total collected premium amount collectively with insurance company within prescribed period. It is further submitted that if any such loss is actually caused to the crop of complainant, then insurance company is legally bound to make payment of compensation as per policy as it received insurance premium amount from answering op within prescribed time and also not returned the same in time and after lapse of time on return of said premium by insurance company same has been credited in the account of complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version submitting therein that as per NCI portal coverage the cotton crop of complainant in village Baruwali 2nd was never got insured with the answering op during the above mentioned season whereas paddy crop of complainant in village Madho Singhana (95) is insured on the NCI portal. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any claim for the cotton crop in village Baruwali 2nd from the insurance company during Kharif 2019 season. It is further submitted that as there was no shortfall in the actual yield of the insured paddy crop of complainant farmer in village Madho Singhana (95) during Kharif, 2019 season, therefore, complainant is not entitled to any area approach claim based upon yield data derived through crop cutting experiments under GCES and op no.1 bank is responsible for wrong uploading of data, if any on the portal as per operational guidelines of PMFBY. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.3 was given up by learned counsel for complainant.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.
7. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Ganesh Pareek, Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/A, transaction document Ex. R1 and minutes of meeting Ex.R2. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Geddam Gandhi Raju, Regional Manager as Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/12.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
9. The complainant is seeking insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 sown in his agricultural land situated in village Baruwali IInd, Tehsil and District Sirsa. However, from the online entries of portal produced on record by complainant as well as op no.2 as Ex.C3 and Ex.R2/9 and Ex.R2/10, it is evident that op no.1 bank shown the field of complainant in village Madhosinghana (95) instead of Baruwali-II and shown the crop as paddy instead of cotton and as there was no shortfall of paddy crop in village Madhosinghana in Kharif, 2019, therefore, op no.2 did not pay any insurance claim amount to the complainant. From the copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C4, it is evident that complainant is having his agricultural land in village Baruwali-II and not in village Madhosinghana and according to complainant he had sown cotton crop in his land, therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of op no.1 bank which had shown the field of complainant in village Madhosinghana and paddy crop instead of cotton crop and due to that reason complainant has not received any claim amount from op no.2 and as such op no.1 bank is liable to pay claim, if any to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 in village Baruwali-II.
10. In so far as loss to the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2019 is concerned, learned counsel for complainant during the course of arguments has placed on file report of Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa and according to this report, the average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 in village Baruwali-II was 244.92 Kgs. per hectare whereas threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta was 572.40 Kgs. per hectare. Since the average yield of cotton crop of village Baruwali- II remained less than threshold yield of block, therefore, as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2019. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2019 was Rs.76,600/-. Therefore, as per formula given in operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to claim amount of Rs.1,13,300/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 in his 51 kanals 13 marlas of land situated in village Baruwali-II. As per clause 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the concerned bank branch is liable to pay the claim of affected farmers whose village mismatch are due to wrong village name entered by the bank on National Crop Insurance Portal. As such the op no.1 bank is only liable to pay the above said amount to the complainant.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,13,300/- to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.1,13,300/- from op no.1 bank alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op no.1 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.2 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 08.10.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
