BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 219 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 05.10.2020.
Date of Decision : 24.05.2024.
Richhpal aged about 64 years son of Shri Rameshwar, resident of village Madho Singhana, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. State Bank of India, Village Madho Singhana, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, 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.
4. Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa.
...…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 parties no.2 and 3.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.4.
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 owner in possession of land measuring 8 kanal 10 marlas being 170/713 share of land measuring 35 kanals 13 marlas comprised in Khewat no.447 Khatuni No. 657 Kitta 6 and 1/8 share of land measuring 201 kanals 15 marlas comprised in khewat no. 331 khatuni no. 539 kitta 27 and 1/2 of land measuring 83 kanals comprised in khewat no.333 khatuni no. 541 situated at village Baruwali IInd, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The complainant has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on his above detailed agricultural land through account number 31543772311. It is further averred that as per crop insurance scheme for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019, a sum of Rs.4336/- was deducted by op no.1 from the above said account of complainant on 11.07.2019 and op no.1 got insured crop from op no.2 but did not supply copy of insurance policy. That complainant had sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2019 season and the cotton crop in his village including his cotton crop was damaged due to natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and as such complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- per acre and some of the villagers have already received compensation within a short time. 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 ops no.1 to 3 have done so for causing loss to the complainant. None of the ops have redressed his grievance and as such ops have caused deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per bank record and as per policy the answering op had deducted the requisite amount from the account of complainant as premium for insurance and said amount has duly been paid to concerned insurance company i.e. op no.2 within prescribed period which is still lying with op no.2 as same has never been returned so far. It is wrong that due to clerical omission wrong village name as Madho Singhana instead of Baruwali IInd was mentioned but this is no ground to deny the compensation even in such situation when as per his own version of complainant, the op no.3 had visited the spot and has also prepared its damaged crop report in such situation clerical omission of village name has become meaningless and op no.3 must have inspected the crop of complainant. It is further submitted that to resolve such type of issues, the decision has been taken in committee constituted by Govt. under the Chairmanship of Sh. Ajit Bala Ji Joshi, IAS DG Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Haryana on 02.07.2019 that insurance company will pay claim to farmer as per farmer record. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Ops no.2 and 3 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 cotton 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 crops in village Baruwali 2nd from the insurance company. It is further submitted that as per operational guidelines of PMFBY 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. As in this case, bank has uploaded farmers details at the NCIP, only the bank branch i.e. State Bank of India, Branch Madhosinghana, Sirsa can only be held liable for the compensation to the complainant. It is further submitted that complainant farmer is not entitled to any claim amount as per PMFBY scheme as there was no shortfall recorded in the actual yield of the insured cotton crop of complainant in village Madho Singhana during Kharif 2019 season. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua ops no.2 and 3 made.
5. Op no.4 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or report of survey of loss of crop is to be prepared by op no.4 and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of op no.4 in this regard. The yield basis claims are settled by insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by op no.4 within specific time period and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.4 made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.
7. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Ganesh Pareek, Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/A, transaction document Ex. R1/1 and minutes of meeting Ex.R1/2. Ops no.2 and 3 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Geddam Gandhi Raju, Regional Manager as Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/12. OP no.4 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex. RW4/A and documents Ex.R4/1, Ex.R4/2.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.4 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 ops no.2 and 3 as Ex.R2/9 and Ex.R2/10, it is evident that op no.1 bank shown the field of complainant in village Madhosinghana (95) and as there was no shortfall of cotton crop in village Madhosinghana in Kharif, 2019, therefore, ops no.2 and 3 did not pay any insurance claim amount to the complainant. From the copies of jamabandis for the year 2007-2008 and 2017-2018 Ex.C4 to Ex.C6, it is evident that complainant is having his agricultural land in village Baruwali-II and not in village Madhosinghana and 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 due to that reason complainant has not received any claim amount from ops no.2 and 3 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. Since it is proved on record from portal entries that op no.1 bank shown the land of complainant in village Madhosinghana, therefore, hand written entry given op no.1 bank to the complainant showing his land in village Baruwali-IInd has no relevance and cannot be relied upon at all and it appears that op no.1 bank has given this document to the complainant only to save his skin and to suppress its mistake.
10. In so far as loss to the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2019 is concerned, although report Ex.R4/2 produced by op no.4 is not signed by Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa but op no.4 during the course of arguments has placed on file similar report which is signed by Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa and according to both these reports, the average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 in village Baruwali (Deom) 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. Although ops no.2 and 3 have also placed on file village wise actual yield of crop cutting experiments under PMFBY Kharif, 2019 allegedly prepared by Deputy Director Agriculture Sirsa alongwith letter Ex.R2/11 but in this report there is no mention of village Baruwali-II and average yield of village Baruwali only is mentioned in this report whereas complainant is having his agricultural land in village Baruwali-II and therefore, the above said report which is also of Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa submitted by op no.4 is to be relied upon which proves the loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2019. The op no.1 bank deducted premium amount for insurance of cotton crop of complainant in his 2.83 hectares of land. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2019 was Rs.76,600/- as is evident from Haryana Govt. notification dated 24.05.2019 Ex.R2/8. Therefore, as per formula given in operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to claim amount of Rs.1,24,000/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 in his 2.83 hectares 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.1,24,000/- 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.1,24,000/- 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 remaining ops no.2 to 4 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: 24.05.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
