BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 104 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 03.05.2021.
Date of Decision : 19.02.2024.
Rajat Sandha aged about 24 years son of Shri Milkh Raj resident of village Mehna Khera, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. State Bank of India Branch Madhosinghana, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager/ Authorized person.
2. The Agriculture Insurance Company Ltd., (AIC) through its Branch Manager Cabin no.7, 3rd Floor, Agromall, Sector-20, Panchkula- 134117.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. A.K. Siroha, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Babbar, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
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 complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist and is owner of land as detailed in jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 read with mutation no. 969 dated 15.03.2019 and mutation no. 977 dated 10.06.2019 situated in village Mehna Khera, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa. The complainant has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on his above said land through account number 38580225409. That complainant in kharif, 2019 season had sown crop of paddy in about 3.37 hectare of land and on 11.07.2019 op no.1 debited amounts of Rs.2726/- and Rs.2479/- from the account of complainant and got insured the crop of kharif, 2019 with op no.2 as per crop insurance scheme namely Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna but did not supply any copy of insurance policy despite his request. It is further averred that in the village the crop of paddy of kharif, 2019 including complainant was destroyed on account of natural calamities, diseases and draught. That surprisingly the above said amount of insurance premium was refunded in the account of complainant on 31.12.2019 i.e. after about six months of deduction when the time of insurance of crops already expired and the time of insurance of rabi crop of 2019 started. That other villagers of village Mehna Khera had received compensation of Rs.49,633/- per hectare from op no.2 for the loss of their paddy crop and as such complainant is also entitled to the insurance amount of Rs.1,66,770/- approximately from ops. It is further averred that complainant had sown crop of paddy in the above said land as shown in Khasra Girdawari for the year 2019-2020 whereas the ops have wrongly refunded the premium after lapse of six months due to clerical/ intentional mistake and as a result of discrepancy the insurance company has refused to pay insurance claim to the complainant. The complainant also submitted an application to State Bank of India as well as on CM Window with regard to above said discrepancy and the officials of the bank assured him to do needful action but no action was taken on this application. It is further submitted that due to above said act and conduct of the ops, the complainant has undergone mental tension and harassment. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed reply submitting therein that it is wrong to say that there is any such collaboration between bank and insurance company and bank has only to collect premium of insurance from its account holder as per policy of Govt. framed to this effect and then to transfer the said amount in favour of concerned insurance company. That answering op is not aware about the nature of crop on relevant period whereas deduction of premium amount is correct and answering op after collecting the premium amount from all concerned account holders has transferred the entire collected amount in favour of op no.2 within due time for insurance of crops of all concerned farmers. It is further submitted that answering op has performed its part in a legal and also in terms of guidelines issued to this effect by the Govt. and answering op is not in position to answer the question that why the op no.2 has refunded the insurance premium amount after lapse of time whereas on receipt of said amount same has been credited in the account of complainant by answering op without any delay. All other 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 and submitted inter alia that crop of complainant was not insured during kharif, 2019 season as no coverage details of this complainant/ farmer are available on the NCI portal under PMFBY scheme. Thus, no claim is payable to the complainant farmer for the above mentioned season whereas the answering op has already refunded the excess premium amount of Rs.428694.56 on 07.06.2021 to the SBI Bank branch Madhosinghana through NEFT. It is also submitted that as the bank/ intermediary has not uploaded the data on the National Crop Insurance Portal, only the bank/ intermediary can be held liable for the compensation. It is further submitted that complainant was not insured by the answering op as there is no application number issued to the complainant by the answering op and there is no data of the complainant on the NCI portal, so no risk was insured with respect to the crop of the complainant during the Kharif 2019 of PMFBY and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as no claim is payable according to PMFBY provisions. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Ganesh Pareek, Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
7. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Jaspal Singh Khurmi Regional Manager as Ex.R5 and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R15.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. From the copy of statement of account of complainant Ex.C2, it is evident that on 11.07.2019 premium amounts of Rs.2726/- and Rs.2479/- were deducted by the op no.1 from the account of complainant for insurance of his paddy crop of kharif, 2019 with op no.2. However, the said premium amounts of Rs.2726/- and Rs.2479/- were reversed back in the account of complainant on 31.12.2019 i.e. after more than five months of deduction from the account of complainant. In this regard op no.1 bank has taken the plea that op no.2 after retaining the premium amount of complainant later on refunded the same to the bank op without assigning any reason and so the bank on receiving the said refunded amount credited the same in the account of complainant. On the other hand, op no.2 insurance company has taken a specific plea that op no.1 bank has not uploaded the data on the National Crop Insurance Portal and as such crop of complainant was not insured with op no.2. The op no.1 bank has also admitted in its email dated 09.11.2020 sent to op no.2 that due to time limit, the data could not be uploaded on the Insurance Portal. As per clause 35.5.2.13 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the Banks should ensure that cultivator are not deprived of any benefit under the Scheme due to errors/ omissions/ commissions of the concerned branch/ PACS, and in case of such errors, the concerned agencies shave to make good all such losses. Since the bank has failed to discharge its liability, so there is deficiency in service on the part of op no.1 bank and op no.1 bank only is liable to make good the loss, if any to the complainant because as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, the duty of the insurance company i.e. verification of data etc. starts after the concerned bank discharges its duty/ liability with due care and caution and uploads the data of the farmers on portal. The op no.1 bank asked the op no.2 through email dated 09.11.2020 to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,66,770/- to the complainant but the op no.1 bank itself was at fault as data was not uploaded by the op no.1 bank on the portal despite the fact that bank was having sufficient time for uploading the data on portal after deduction of premium amount on 11.07.2019 but has failed to do so and only to save its skin the op no.1 bank through its email dated 9.11.2020 asked the op no.2 to pay the claim amount to the complainant. Although no report regarding loss of paddy crop of kharif, 2019 i.e. average yield of village of complainant and threshold yield of block has been placed on file by the complainant but the op no.1 bank itself has assessed the loss to the crop of complainant and admitted the loss to the paddy crop of complainant in kharif, 2019 to the extent of Rs.1,66,770/- as per its email dated 09.11.2020 sent to the insurance company (at page no.3 of Ex.C5) and in view of the aforesaid admission on the part of op no.1 bank, bank is liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.1,66,770/- to the complainant for the loss of his paddy crop of kharif, 2019 in his 3.37 hectares of land since op no.1 bank has failed to discharge its liability.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 and direct the op no.1 to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,66,700/- to the complainant 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 above said amount of Rs.1,66,770/- 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 said stipulated period. However, complaint against 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
Dt. 19.02.2024. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
