Haryana

Karnal

CC/75/2020

Dai Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Singh

09 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.75 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.03.02.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:09.07.2024

 

Dai Ram aged about 40 years son of Shri Mansa Ram, resident of village Shahapur P.O. Sirsi Tehsil and District Karnal. Aadhar card no.3450 7422 1348.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. State Bank of India, branch of Old Grain Market, Novelty Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Regional office Ground floor, SCO 64-65 Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

                                                              …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

 

Argued by: Shri Amandeep Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Pardeep Gupta, counsel for the OP no.1.

                   Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                     (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 an agriculturist by profession and he is owner in possession of land measuring 9 acres in village Shahpur Tehsil and District Karnal, vide jambandi for the year 2015-2016. The complainant is having a KCC Limit bank account with the OP no.1, vide account no.300533454574. As per instructions and guidelines of Government of India, the complainant will have to get his crop insured under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Since, it was mandatory, hence the complainant has not objected the same. Renewal premium of the policy of the crop of the complainant was debited in the account of the complainant on 20.09.2011 by debiting an amount of Rs.2052/-. Unfortunately, the paddy crop of the year 2011 was totally damaged due to heavy rain and accumulation of water in the fields of the complainant, due to which the complainant has suffered huge financial loss of Rs.69,000/-. Complainant gave intimation to the OP no.1 about the loss his crops, then OP no.1 advised the complainant to contact the OP no.2 as it is OP no.2, who is insurer of his crop and he will pay the damages to the complainant. Complainant lodged a claim with the OP no.2 and completed all the formalities as desired by the OP but the claim amount was not paid by the OP no.2. However, OP no.2 has declined the payment of compensation because the Block of the village of the complainant is mentioned as “Indri” in place of “Nissing”. The said mistake is not on the part of the complainant and complainant cannot be held liable for the same. Complainant requested the OP no.2 several times verbally as well as through reminders dated 07.12.2013 and 14.01.2023 to pay the claim amount and thereafter also ultimately the complainant moved a complaint to the C.M. Window and the OP no.1 replied to said complaint that they have been proceeding with the matter and wrote letter to the OP no.2 vide no.BM/SL2019-20-212 dated 19.10.2019 and also stated that OP no.1 send email dated 22.10.2019 and 08.11.2019 to the OPs but nothing has been done by the OPs. The complainant when in July, 2019, the OP no.2 stated that as per their record the village of the complainant is recorded in their record as Indri Block whereas he is having his land at village Nissing Block and shown its inability to pay the said amount. The aforesaid mistake of wrong mentioning of village of the complainant is not on the part of the complainant, rather it has been taken place due to the careless and negligent and carelessness act of the OPs. After getting the said information from the OPs, complainant approached and requested both the OPs to re-consider his matter and to pay the amount of damages to him as there is no fault on his part but they both flatly refused to do so. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

 2.            On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that that under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, the OP after deducting premium of Rs.2052/- on 20.09.2011 from the account of the complainant i.e. loan account no.30053454574 were sent to OP no.2 for insurance under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for the kharif season of year 2011 alongwith premium of other borrowers amount of Rs.7,67,288/- on 21.09.2011 through Demand Draft no.920611 except this OP has no role to pay in the present complaint, so far as the damage to the crop of complainant is concerned the liability, if any, to pay the compensation for the same is that of OP no.2 to which the premium was paid by the OP no.1. The OP no.1 has acted as per the instructions of the Government of India. OP no.1 deposited the crop insurance premium of complainant in time to the account of OP no.2, so the liability to pay the compensation to the complainant is of OP no.2. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and barred by limitation. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant farmer is covered under MNAIS Scheme and not under PMFBY Scheme. The present MNAIS scheme is not being implemented in Haryana. As per yield date to the said crop and season received from the Department of Agriculture, Haryana, claims with following details were transferred with respect to the State Bank of India, Grain Market, Karnal Branch.

Claim amount Rs.	Number of beneficiaries	Date of transfer	Mode of payment	Account number	Transaction reference number
47,38,864	181	11.08.2012	RTGS	32472145601	UTIBHI2224001813

 

Claims paid through SBI, Grain Market, Karnal Branch have been mentioned above, individual details of beneficiaries were with the bank as per the coverage done by the branch. It is also submitted here that as per the yield data provided by the State Government, there was no claim in Shahapur village Block Indri. All claims are paid as per scheme provisions only and data provided as per Declaration forms by the bank. OP cannot be held liable for any deficiency committed by the Bank. In case claims have arisen during crop season then respective defaulting bank and its branches would be made responsible to make payment of the admissible claims to loanee farmers who were deprived of insurance cover. It is further pleaded that OP has duly replied the RTI complaint and also clarified its position. The village name of the complainant in the record was found to be mentioned as Nissing and not Indri. As per record, all claims are payable as per scheme provisions only and the OP cannot be liable to pay the deficiency committed by the bank. The claims are payable as per the date provided by the bank to the AIC, if the data provided by the bank is incorrect then it is a mistake on part of the bank and not on the part of the OP. The OP has no liability towards the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of jamabandi for the year 2015-2016 Ex.C1, copy of statement of Account Ex.C2, copy of application dated 20.11.2012 by complainant to Bank Ex.C3, copy of application by complainant to OP under RTI Act and its reply Ex.C4,  copy of notification under RTI Act, 2005 Ex.C5, copy of application by complainant to OP under RTI Act and its reply Ex.C6 and Ex.C7,   copy of application dated 22.11.2012 by complainant to OP Bank Ex.C8, copy of letter of OP no.2 dated 29.11.2012 regarding denial of claim Ex.C9, copy of letter dated 07.12.2012 written by Bank to Insurance company Ex.C10, copy of letter dated 12.12.2012 of Insurance Company Ex.C11, copy of letter dated 14.01.2013 of Bank Ex.C12, copy of letter dated 17.01.2013 of Insurance Company Ex.C13, copy of application dated 18.07.2018 before CM Window Ex.C14, copy of action report of CM Window Ex.C15, copy of letter dated 19.10.2019 written by bank to insurance company Ex.C16 and closed he evidence on 03.07.2013 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Krishan Chander, Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 18.12.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Geddam Gandhi Raju Ex.RW1/A, copy of  guidelines of Pilot Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme Ex.R1, copy of reply of letter dated 09.05.2018 under RTI Act Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 18.12.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             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.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued, the complainant has obtained cash credit limit for agriculture/loan from the OP no.1 and OP no.1 had provided crop insurance, under Pilot Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. The paddy crop of the complainant was totally damaged due to heavy rain and accumulation of water in his fields, due to which the complainant has suffered huge financial loss of Rs.69,000/-.  Complainant lodged the claim with the OPs. OP no.2 has declined the claim of complainant on the ground that the Block of the village of the complainant is mentioned as “Indri” instead of “Nissing”. The  mistake of wrong mentioning of village of the complainant is not on the part of the complainant, rather it was on the part of the OPs, hence  complainant cannot be penalized for same. The complainant requested the OPs several times to make the payment of compensation but they failed to pay the same and prayed for allowing the complaint 

10.           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 Pilot Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, OP no.1 had remitted premium in the account of insurance company i.e. OP no.2, so there is no fault on the part of the bank/OP no.1. He further argued that the present complaint is barred by limitation  as the present complaint has been filed on 03.02.2020 whereas the paddy crop of the complainant has been destroyed in the year 2011 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11.           Learned counsel for OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that all claims are paid as per scheme and data provided by the bank. The village name of the complainant in the record was found to be mentioned as Indri and not Nissing and OP cannot be liable for the mistake committed by the bank and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

13.           OPs have alleged that present complaint is barred by limitation and same is not maintainable before the Commission. On the other hand, complainant has alleged that he continuously approached the OPs by way of filing the applications/reminders, application under RTI Act, 2005 and application before C.M. Window and thus, complaint is within time.

14.           The paddy crop of the complainant for the year 2011 has been damaged due to heavy rain and accumulation of the water in his fields. Admittedly, the OP no.1 has deducted the premium amount and said premium amount has been remitted in the account of OP no.2, who has insured the crop of the complainant. This fact has also been proved from the account statement Ex.C2. Non-receipt of the claim amount, on 20.11.2012 complainant moved an application before the OP no.2. Complainant also moved an application Ex.C4 under RTI Act, 2005 to OP no.1, OP replied the same, the complainant was not satisfied with the reply and he filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, Appellate Authority passed an order Ex.C5 dated 15.06.2018 and direct the OP to supply the information to the complainant. Complainant also moved an application Ex.C8 and continuously approached the OPs with regard to non-credit the claim amount in his account. OPs have not denied that complainant has not been approached to them continuously since 2011. Thus, it has been proved that cause of action was still continued till filing the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint is not barred by limitation.

15.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and possessing agriculture land in village Shahapur and had obtained crop loan from OP no.1 (bank) and OP no.1 had deducted premium amount for insurance of his crop on behalf of OP no.2 under Pilot Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. It is also an admitted  that the insurance premium was duly remitted in the account of OP no.2 by the OP no.1. It is also admitted that paddy crop of complainant alongwith other villagers has been damaged due to heavy rain and accumulation of water in the fields. It is also admitted that OPs have paid the compensation to the other borrowers, whose crops were damaged due to heavy rain. It is also admitted that the compensation of the complainant has not been given to him due to mismatch of the village name in the record.

16.           In the present case, the insurance company i.e. OP no.2 which has retained the premium amount of complainant for insuring paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2011 and has not returned the premium amount to bank in time is liable to pay insurance claim for the damage of crop to the complainant. Furthermore, the crop of the complainant got surveyed consolidated. The OP no.2 i.e. insurance company has credited the amount of Rs.47,38,864/- for the damage of crops falling in the Nissing Block. There is nothing on file to prove that insurance company OP no.2 has verified the data of the complainant as provided by the bank. It was the duty of the insurance company, on receipt of premium amount to verify the date provided by the bank. Therefore, OP no.2 cannot go back and its liability. Hence, the act of the OP no.2 (insurance company) amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

17.           The complainant has claimed Rs.69,000/- for damage of his nine acres of paddy crop. It is not the case of the OPs that they have not paid the compensation on account of damage of paddy crop to the other borrowers, whose land have been insured by the OP no.2 through OP no.1. OPs have not denied that the paddy crop of the complainant had not been destroyed and complainant was not entitled for the claimed amount. Hence, in view of the above, the complainant is entitled for the claimed amount alongwith interest, compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses.

18.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 i.e. insurance company to pay Rs.69,000/- (Rs.sixty nine thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 03.02.2020 till its realization to the complainant. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Complaint qua OP no.1 stands dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 09.07.2024

                                                               

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal

 

(Vineet Kaushik)       

                          Member