Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/302/2019

Shamsher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Nasib Singh

21 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    302 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         29.07.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 21.07.2022

 

Shamsher Singh s/o Shri Bhag Singh, r/o village Ishaq, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. State Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Ambala Road, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Railway Road, Kurukshetra.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Officer, Sector-7, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Shri Mehar Singh, Adv. for the complainant.

                   Shri R.K. Harit, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

                   Shri Mukesh Kumar, ADA for Opposite Party No.3.

 

ORDER:

 

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

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that complainant was having 25 acres of agriculture land in village Ishaq, District Kurukshetra and having its KCC loan account with OP No.1 bearing Account No.65104790644. He sown paddy crop in his 25 acres of land in July 2018 and got insured the same under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) from OP No.2 through OP No.1 and an amount of Rs.14789/- on 30.07.2018 was deducted by OP No.1 from his said account. On 23/24.09.2018, the paddy crops of 25 acres (16 acres fully and 9 acres about 50% damaged) was damaged/ruined due to heavy rain and heavy flow water. He reported the matter to the OPs. On 24.9.2018, he approached to OP NO.3 and lodge his complaint vide Sr. No.4799 dated 24.09.2018 and thereafter, team of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Pehowa inspected the crop and reported that up to 90-95% in 16 acres and 50% in 9 acres were damaged. The OP No.2 also deducted the next crop premium i.e. rabi 2018 from his account for a sum of Rs.9067.43 on 31.12.2018. Thereafter the compensation was disbursed to the villagers, but the OPs did not gave any compensation to him. On 116.2019 he gave an application to OP No.1 in this regard, but all in vain. On 20.07.2019 the OPs finally refused to admit his claim, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their respective written statements.

4.                OP No.1 in its written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction and locus-standi. It is submitted that if the crops of complainant was damaged due to heavy rain in the area, then the OP No.2 was liable to pay the compensation amount as the crops of complainant was insured with it. No reports of damaged crops have been submitted before OP No.1. It is not the duty of OP No.1 bank to visit at the spot and the sole duty of insurance company or Agriculture department to visit the spot jointly and after survey, to submit its report. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and present complaint deserves dismissal.

5.                The OP No.2 in its written statement stated that as per policy issued by OP No.2 for the farmers of village Ishaq, on the basis of insurance premium deposited by OP No.1 within stipulated period, no insurance premium for the insurance of complainant has been paid by OP No.1 to OP No.2 and crop of complainant was not insured from OP No.2. As such, no insurable interest has been paid to OP No.2 in lieu of insurance of crop of complainant and present complaint deserves dismissal on this very ground.

6.                The OP No.3 in its written statement stated that the farmer gave an intimation on 25.09.2018 and same was sent to the insurance company to assess the loss and committee conducted the survey and submitted the report directly to insurance company. In village Ishaq, claim arised on the basis of average yield i.e. 3122.25 kg per hectare, while threshold yield was 3500 kg per hectare. Due to shortfall in yield claim arised in village Rs.7932.80 per hectare.

7.                The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence.

8.                On the other hand, the OP No.1, in order to support its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed its evidence. The OP No.2, in order to support its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A along with documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 and closed the same. The OP No.3, in support of its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and closed its evidence.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

10.              Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was having 25 acres of agriculture land in village Ishaq, District Kurukshetra and having its KCC loan account with OP No.1. The complainant sown paddy crop in his 25 acres of land in July 2018 and got insured the same under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) from OP No.2 through OP No.1 and an amount of Rs.14789/- on 30.07.2018 was deducted by OP No.1 from his said account. On 23/24.09.2018, the paddy crops of 25 acres (16 acres fully and 9 acres about 50% damaged) was damaged/ruined due to heavy rain and heavy flow water. The complainant reported the matter to the OPs. On 24.9.2018, he approached to OP No.3 and lodge his complaint vide Sr. No.4799 dated 24.09.2018 and thereafter, team of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Pehowa inspected the crop and reported that up to 90-95% in 16 acres and 50% in 9 acres were damaged. The OP No.2 also deducted the next crop premium i.e. rabi 2018 from his account for a sum of Rs.9067.43 on 31.12.2018. Thereafter the compensation was disbursed to the villagers, but the OPs did not gave any compensation to him. On 20.07.2019 the OPs finally refused to admit his claim, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11.              Learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that if the crops of complainant was damaged due to heavy rain in the area, then the OP No.2 was liable to pay the compensation amount as the crops of complainant was insured with it. No reports of damaged crops have been submitted before OP No.1. It is not the duty of OP No.1 bank to visit at the spot and the sole duty of insurance company or Agriculture department to visit the spot jointly and after survey, to submit its report. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and present complaint deserves dismissal.

12.              Learned counsel for the Op No.2 has argued that as per policy issued by OP No.2 for the farmers of village Ishaq, on the basis of insurance premium deposited by OP No.1 within stipulated period, no insurance premium for the insurance of complainant has been paid by OP No.1 to OP No.2 and crop of complainant was not insured from OP No.2. As such, no insurable interest has been paid to OP No.2 in lieu of insurance of crop of complainant and present complaint deserves dismissal on this very ground.

13.              The ADA for OP No.3 has argued that the farmer gave an intimation on 25.09.2018 and same was sent to the insurance company to assess the loss and committee conducted the survey and submitted the report directly to insurance company. In village Ishaq, claim arised on the basis of average yield i.e. 3122.25 kg per hectare, while threshold yield was 3500 kg per hectare. Due to shortfall in yield claim arised in village Rs.7932.80 per hectare.

14.              There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant was having agriculture loan account/KCC account with OP No.1 bearing Account No.65104790644 vide copy of Passbook Ex.C-2 and on 30.07.2018, an amount of Rs.14789/- (Rs.590 per acre x 25 acres) was deducted from the account of complainant under Government Scheme i.e. Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (referred here PMFBY) for 25 acres of land of paddy/rabbi crop of the complainant.

15.              As per complainant, on 23/24.09.2018, the paddy crops of 25 acres was damaged/ruined due to heavy rain and in this regard, he reported the matter to the OPs and Agriculture Department Ex.C-3, who inspected the crop and reported that up to 90-95% in 16 acres and 50% in 9 acres vide report Ex.C-4, but the OPs failed to pay the same the claim amount, despite repeated requests by him. In this regard, OP No.1 has contended that it has credited the premium amount of village Ishaq to OP No.2 in the month of July/August 2018, but OP No.2 had remitted back the said amount to it on 12.06.2019. The OP No.1 further contended that OP No.1 had asked from OP No.2 to provide the details of individual farmers whose amount the OP No.2 had remitted back to OP NO.1, but they refused to provide the same. To support his above contention, OP No.1 bank produced copy of emails as Mark-A on the case file. From this document, it is found that on 11.01.2019, one Bhim Raj having email ID bhim.raj@orientalinsurance.co.in sent an email to SBP on email ID sbi.50098@sbi.co.in, mentioning therein that OP No.2 are remitted back the excess amount of Rs.949043/- to OP No.1 bank. In that email, the OP No.2 further denied to provide the details of individual farmers as demanded by OP No.1 bank from it. In reply to that email, the OP No.1 bank written email to OP No.2 insurance company on 14.01.2020 again requesting to provide the details of farmers whose premium amount was remitted back by OP No.2 to it in order to refund the amount to the farmers concerned, but all in vain. Until unless OP No.2 will provide the details of farmers concerned whose premium amount has been remitted by it to OP No.1, then how it can be possible for OP No.1 bank to refund the same to those farmers. The above act and conduct of OP No.2 amount to gross deficiency in service on its part.  

16.              The OP No.1 further contended that it credited the amount of premium of the farmers of village Ishaq to OP No.2 in the month of July/August 2018, but OP No.2 insurance company has remitted back the part premium amount on 12.06.2019 i.e. after more than ten months from its receiving from Op No.1, without any reason, which is clear cut violation of “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018” and its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii, which reads as under:-

“xxii) 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 banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date 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”.   

 

17.              From perusal of above Clause xxii of said Notification, we found that it was the required for OP No.2 insurance company to verify the data/information provided by OP No.1 bank regarding the farmers concerned within the period of cutoff date of two months and if any discrepancy/mistake is found by it, then intimate to OP No.1 bank in this regard, but in the case in hand, OP No.2 had neither raised any objection within the period of cutoff date of two months nor intimated to OP No.1 bank regarding any discrepancy in the data uploaded by it, and now at the time when crops of complainant was destroyed and he is/was demanding the claim amount, as per policy in question from insurance company, then OP No.2 in order to save its skin from its liabilities, remitted back the part premium amount of farmers concerned on 12.06.2019 i.e. after a lapse of period of more than ten months from the date of receiving the same on August/September 2018 from OP No.1 bank just to shift its liability on OP No.1 bank, which is clear cut violation of above Notification. So, as per above Notification, now it will be binding on OP No.2 Insurance Company to pay the claim amount to the complainant, for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his standing crops, as per policy in question and above refusal of OP No.2 in this regard, amounts to gross deficiency in service on its part.

18.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? The complainant alleged that he sown rabi crop in about 25 acres, out of which, 16 acres fully and 9 acres about 50% was damaged, but complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence in this regard. There is no dispute that 25 acres land of complainant was insured under the said scheme. In “Village wise A. yield, Threshold Yield, Sum Insured and claim of paddy crop under PMFBY for Kharif 2018-19 District Thanesar” Ex.C-6 at Sr. No.37, Threshold Yield per kg/hectare of village Ishak (village of complainant) is mentioned as 3500 and claim amount was shown as Rs.7932.80 per hectare on average basis. Since complainant suffered loss of his 25 acres of land, therefore, the claim amount, to be paid to the complainant, is as under:-

                   Claim amount                          =       Rs.7932.80 per hectare

                   1 Hectare                                 =       2.5 acre.

                   Loss suffered by complainant in=     25 acres

                   Rs.7932.80/2.47                      =       Rs.3173.12 per acre

                   Rs.3173.12 x 25 acres             =       Rs.79328/-

         

19.              So, in view of above calculation, the complainant is entitled to receive the claim amount of Rs.79,328/-, from OP No.2, for the loss suffered by him in 25 acres of his land. Since throughout the complaint, complainant has not specifically alleged any act of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 nor the same was proved, therefore, complaint qua OP No.1 is liable to be dismissed. However, it is pertinent to mention here that since the premium amount of Rs.14,789/- which was remitted back by OP No.2 to OP No.1 bank, which is still lying deposited with OP No.1 bank, therefore, OP No.1 bank will refund back the said premium amount of Rs.14,789/- to OP No.2 insurance company within 30 days from the date of this order.

20.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OP No.2 and dismissed against OP No.1. We direct OP No.2 to make the payment of claim amount of Rs.79,328/- to the complainant. The OP No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-, 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.2 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.79,328/- shall carry interest @ 6% simple per annum from the date of this order till its actual realization and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against OP No.2. 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:21.07.2022.

    

 

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)               

          (Neelam)                                                               President,

          Member.                                                                DCDRC, Kurukshetra.

 

 

 

                  

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.