Haryana

Karnal

CC/753/2019

Satbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Senior Manager, Bank Of Maharashtra - Opp.Party(s)

Nafe Singh

14 Oct 2022

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 753 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.07.11.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:14.10.2022

 

Satbir Singh son of Shri Chattar Singh, resident of village Bazida Jattan, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Senior Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, near Ambedkar Chowk, old G.T. Road, Karnal.

 

2.     Relationship Manager, SBI General insurance Company Ltd., situated at SCO no.388-389, First floor, Karnal Commercial Complex, old Mughal Canal Road, Karnal-132001.

 

3.     Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal (office opposite KCGMC).

 

                                                                      …..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 Nafe Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Deepak Sachdeva, cousel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for OP no.2.

Shri Surender Kumar, 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 having KCC Account no.20138101785 in OP no.1 bank and a sum of Rs.3528/- was remitted from his account in favour of OP no.2 for crop insurance on 31.07.2018 for the crop of kharif season of 2018. The abovesaid amount was debited for the crop insurance of 8 acres of agriculture land but due to the flood the 2.5 acres of agriculture crop of paddy of the complainant was badly affected. The complainant immediately informed the OPs as well as Agriculture Department regarding the said damages of crop and accordingly the official of the agriculture department as well as the officials of insurance company got surveyed the damaged crop and found the loss to the extent of 65% in his crop. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs several times and requested for disbursement of the insurance claim in favour of complainant but they flatly refused to disburse the same by alleging that the OPs have not uploaded the name of the complainant in their portal, the place of the crop of complainant mentioned as village Katlaheri instead of village Bazida Jattan. Complainant requested the OPs so many times to get corrected the village name and to release the claim/compensation but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other.  The OP no.1 committed mistake in filing of the GOI portal. It is further averred that all the persons in village Bazida Jattan, who were having shortfall of the yield of paddy crop for the season of Kharif for the year 2018, they have received their respective claims but due to negligent on the part of the OP no.1, complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.48,344/-. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay the compensation of damages crop of the land of the complainant to the tune of Rs.48,344/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.22,500/- as litigation costs.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is an admitted fact that the OP no.1 bank has deducted the premium from the account of the complainant of Rs.3528/-dated 31.07.2018 from his loan account for paying the crop insurance premium of crop. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard maintainability and cause of action. On merits, It is pleaded that the insurance company has received the premium from the OP bank and issued the crop policy bearing no.202031-0000-00 alongwith application no.040106181120- 562252701 to the complainant as per the date available on Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna crop portal.  It is further pleaded that the policy booked under PMFBY for the complainant is for village Katlaheri and not for village Bazida Jattan as alleged by the complainant. The OP has booked the complainant’s policy through the data mentioned in the crop portal i.e. PMFBY official website. It is pertinent to mention here that these data are uploaded on portal by the bank and OP company pick these data for issuing the policy and for payment of claim in case of crop failure. It is further pleaded that the complainant claimed crop loss for village Bazida Jattan which is not covered under the issued policy as well as the OP has also not received any premium for the said village. Furthermore, if the complainant’s agriculture land is situated in the village Katlaheri (59) then also the complainant is not liable for any compensation because as pr AY TY procedure the village Katlaheri (59) the actual yield (AY) is more than Threshold yield (TY) for paddy crop, hence claim is not payable as per the PMFBY. 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, as the Actual Yield kilogram/Hectare was more than Threshold Yield Kilogram/Hectare for crop:- paddy in village- Katlaheri (59), which is respectively crop insured by and insurance unit of complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit under the policy.

Crop         District    Village         sum        Actual       Threshold            Claim

                                                  insurd          Yield         Yield 

                                                            (AY)         (TY)

Paddy                Karnal      Katlaheri        176400   3593.91   3332.70       0

(Dhan)                    (59)                      

 

 

Based upon the calculation of the claim Rs.0, Hence the complainant is not liable for any compensation. It is further pleaded that complainant is not entitled for any compensation for damages to the crop as claimed amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 in its reply stated that due to the flood the 2.5 acres of agriculture crop of paddy of the complainant was badly affected and the assessment agencies visited the spot and assessed that 65% crop in 2.5 acres was destroyed due to the natural calamity i.e. flood. It is further pleaded that in reply to the letter to Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal that the crop loss claim could not be given to complainant as they had checked the details of the farmer as per their record crop village on GOI portal is Katlehri (59) which are mismatched with the final survey report of the farmer, therefore, they expressed their inability to entertain the claim. It is very unfortunate that due to the malafide intention OP no.1 has wrongly notified the location of the agriculture land of complainant. Due to the negligent of the OP no.1, complainant could not get received the claim/compensation. As pr PMFBY operation guidelines clause no.XXIV (4) (c ), if case claim have arisen during crop season then respective bank and its branches would be responsible to make payment of the admissible claims to the loanee farmers who were deprived from insurance cover to their crops. OP no.1 is liable for claim amount.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bank pass book Ex.C1, copy of jambandi for the year 2001-2002, copy of claim repudiation letter Ex.C3, copy of survey report Mark-1, copy of account statement Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, AD Ex.C3, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 15.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 suffered a statement that written statement filed by the OP no.1 be read its evidence and closed the evidence on 09.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Arvind Singh Naruka Ex.RW1/A, copy of insurance acknowledgement receipt Ex.R1, copy of Blockwise actual yield and threshold yield Ex.R2, copy of crop portal Ex.R3, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 09.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

9.             OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Project Officer Ex.OP3/A, copy of survey report Ex.OP3/1, copy of guidelines of PMFBY Ex.OP3/2, copy of email Ex.OP3/3 and closed the evidence on 09.06.2022 by suffering separate statement

10.           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.

11.           Learned counsel of complainant, while reiterating the contents of complainant, has vehemently argued that complainant had obtained cash credit limit for agriculture/loan from the OP no.1 under scheme of cash credit agriculture and for the purpose of loan and got insured his crop from OP no.2 through OP no.1. He further argued that the complainant had sown paddy crop in his land in the month of June/July, 2018 but due to heavy rainfall, the crop was badly damaged and thereafter, complainant approached the OPs as well as Deputy Director Agriculture and reported the whole incident. Officials of the Deputy Director Agriculture visited at the site and inspected the damaged crop of the complainant and found damaged to the extent of 65% in 2.5 acre of land. The complainant requested the OPs several times to make the payment of compensation but they failed to pay the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

12.           Per-contra, learned counsel of OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that after deduction of premium amount, under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 had remitted premium in the account of insurance company, so there is no fault on the part of the bank/OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP no.1.

13.           Learned counsel for OP no.2 argued that Actual Yield (AY) kilogram/hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy in village Katlaheri, hence the complainant is not liable for any compensation. 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.  As per Ex.R1 i.e. screen short of portal, the name of village is mentioned as Katlaheri by OP no.2 instead of village Bazida Jtatan and there is no loss in Katlaheri, hence the claim of the complainant was rightly declined. There is no fault on the part of the insurance company and OP no.2 is not liable for the wrong act committed by OP no.1 i.e. bank and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

14.           OP no.3 submitted that the crop of the complainant was damaged due to water logging. OP no.3 inspected the fields of complainant on 07.10.2018 and prepared the report in which they shown that the crop of complainant damaged to the extent of 65% in 2.5 acres of land.

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

16.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land in village Bajida Jattan and had obtained crop loan from OP no.1 (bank) and OP no.1 had deducted premium amounts for insurance of crop on behalf of OP no.2 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. It is also an admitted fact that the insurance premium was duly remitted in the account of OP No.2 by the OP No.1.

17.           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  in which it is clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant in village Bajida Jattan and observed that damaged crop in two and half acres of land to the of extent of 65%. Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Bajida Jattan and same was damaged to the extent of 65% in two and half acres of land but name of village has been wrongly mentioned by OP no.1 bank in the insurance portal as village  Katlaheri(4) instead of Bajida Jattan.

18.           Furthermore, 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 were 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 there is no loss in village Katlaheri. OP no.3 has also placed on record copy of inspection report, conducted by agricultural department and representative of insurance company, it reveals that on 07.10.2018 agriculture department and representative of insurance company had inspected the field of complainant and found that his paddy crop in area of two and half acres of land was damaged to the extent of 65% due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report that paddy crop of complainant in area of two and half of land in village Bajida Jattan had damaged and he has suffered loss on account of damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The OP no.1 has not paid claim amount to the complainant on the ground that as the actual yield was more than threshold yield in village Katlaheri, therefore, complainant is not entitled for any compensation. In the portal ID, the area of crop insured of complainant has been shown in village Katlaheri instead of village Bajida Jattan and as such OP no.1 has taken stand that crop of complainant in village Bajida Jattan is not insured with it. No doubt, the OP no.2 bank has wrongly uploaded the name of the village of complainant, but according to clause 19 (xxii) of Haryana Government Agriculture & Welfare Department Notification dated 30.3.2018, the insurance company is to 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. Hence, OP no.2 cannot take such plea that there is mismatch of the village name of the complainant as there is nothing on file to prove the fact that OP no.2 insurance company had verified the data of the complainant as provided by the OP no.1 independently and sought any correction and OP no.2 retained the premium amount of complainant and has not refunded the same to the complainant due to mismatch of village name of complainant.

19.           Moreover, as per the minutes of the meeting to discuss the pending dispute of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) held on 02.07.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri Ajit Bala Ji Joshi, IAS Director General Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana and Minutes of the meeting to discuss the pending dispute of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) held on 11.09.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri D.K. Jain, Zonal Manager (PNB) and Convener SLBC Haryana, in the abovesaid meetings, it was resolved that cases where farmers record mismatch and premium paid by Banks to insurance company on time, whereas insurance company has not returned premium to bank in time, insurance company will pay the claim to farmers as per farmer record.

20.           In rebuttal, learned counsel for OP no.1 has relied upon   the minutes of 4^th Meeting of State Level Grievance Committee held on 14.1.2021, in which it has been resolved/ decided that in case of Village Name Mismatch, the concerned bank branch is liable to pay the claim of affected farmers. This observation has been given by the Committee on the basis of clause no.XXIV of PMFBY for the year Kharif 2016 to Kharif 2018 of Operational Guidelines and clause no.17.2 for the year Rabi 2018-19, Kharif-2019 and Rabi 2019-20 of Revised Operational Guidelines of PMFBY. The clause 17.2 of the Operational Guidelines of PMFBY is reproduced as under:-

“Consolidated declaration/ proposal formats to be submitted physically/ electronically by Nodal banks/ Branches shall contain details about Insurance Unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area insured of the farmers, number and category of farmers covered (small and marginal or other) and number of farmers under other categories (SC/ST/others)/ Women alongwith their bank account dertails etc. (bank/ their branches) as per the application for provided on the National Crop Insurance Portal. Banks are required to upload the insured farmers’ data mandatorily on the National Crop Insurance Portal. No other platform shall be used for uploading/ submission of farmers’ data. Those farmers whose data is uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal shall only be eligible for insurance coverage and accordingly the premium subsidy will also be released. In cases where farmers are denied crop insurance due to incorrect/ partial/ non-uploading of their details on Portal, concerned Banks/ Intermediaries shall be responsible for payment of claims to them.

                Further relevant portion of clause No.24 of the revised operational guidelines of PMFBY regarding Important Conditions/ Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks is as under:-

24.1 “Insurance Companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intermediary or directly. In case of 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.”

24.2  “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.”

21.           The abovesaid Minutes of the meeting has already been challenged by the concerned Banks before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the verdict of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court is still pending. Thus the said minutes of meetings are not applicable upon the OPs.

22.            In the present case, the insurance company OP no.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 OP no.1 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 OP no.2 have inspected the field of complainant and confirmed about the loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. Therefore, OP no.2 cannot go back and cannot avoid its liability when its representative has already found loss by surveying the crop of complainant. Furthermore, the crop of the complainant got surveyed individually not consolidated by the Agriculture Department, which has been proved from the survey report. Complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of insurance company OP no.1 inspected the field of complainant and confirmed about the loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. Therefore, OP no.2 cannot go back and cannot avoid its liability when its representative has already found loss to the crop of complainant.  So, the insurance company OP no.2 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, no liability of OPs no.1 and 3 is made out.

23.           Now, we observe the entitlement of the complainant regarding claim amount for the damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 65% in two and half acres of land. The said report has not been disputed by the insurance company. As per document issued by Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Haryana, as also 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. Complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 65% in two and half acres of land. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.73,125/-(29,250x2.5), but complainant has claimed Rs.48,344/-.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for Rs.48,344/- alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. However, no liability of OPs no.1 and 3 is made out.

24.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 i.e. insurance company to pay the amount of Rs.48,344/- (Rs. forty eight thousand three hundred forty four only) alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of present complaint till its actual realization. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complaint against OPs no.2 and 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:14.10.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member