Haryana

Karnal

CC/262/2020

Balwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syndicate Bank - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

03 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 262 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.30.07.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:03.05.2023

 

Balwinder Singh, aged 80 years, son of Shri Angrej Singh, resident of Dera Gobindgarh, illage Dachar, District Karnal. Aadhar card no.5826 6681 7477.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Syndicate Bank, through its Branch Manager, village Dachar, District Karnal.

 

2.     SBI General Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO 388-389, 1^st floor, Karan Commercial Complex, Old Mugal Canal, (near Guru Harkishan Public School, Karnal).

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…Member

 

 Argued by: Shri S.S. Moonak, counsel for complainant.

Shri Rishi Pal Rana, 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 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is an agriculturists by profession. He is owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 14½ acres situated in village Dachar, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal, vide jambandi for the year 2017-2018. The complainant had sown the paddy crop in the aforesaid agriculture land in the month of June-July 2018, the complainant had spent a huge amount of Rs.20,000/- per acre in sowing the paddy crop. The complainant is the account holder of OP no.1, vide account no. 82528010005770. The complainant had taken the loan from the Bank.  The complainant has also taken insurance policy under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from the OP no.2 through OP no.1 and the premium of Rs.8500/- on 30.07.2018 of said insurance was deducted from the account of complainant. The OPs assured the complainant that if the crop is destroyed, damaged, in that eventuality the OPs will pay a sum of Rs.35000/- per acre to the complainant under the abovesaid policy. In the month of August, 2018 due to heavy rains, the paddy crop sown by the complainant in his agriculture field as mentioned above were totally submerged/damaged/ruined/ destroyed. The complainant visited the office of OP no.1 and requested for the supply of the insurance policy but OP no.1 refused to supply the same. Complainant moved an application under RTI Act to the office of OPs, but OP no.1 has given a vague reply, only policy receipt was mentioned. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the OPs but no satisfactory reply was given and no compensation was assessed/paid. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay the compensation of damages crop of the land of the complainant i.e. Rs.9,00,000/-and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP has deducted premium amount from the account of the complainant regarding insurance of crops for the kharif 2018 amounting to Rs.8500/-.  It is further pleaded that the amount of compensation as alleged for damaged crop of complainant is to be given to the OP no.2. The insurance company has not returned the premium amount of policy to the bank, if any, discrepancies were thereon, so the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, if any, to the complainant. 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 filed its separate 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 in the present case, as the actual yield  (AY) kilogram/hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy (irrigated) in village:- Dachaur (62), hence the complainant not liable for any claim as per PMFBY guideline. Further, the OP did not receive any localize claim intimation. OP had issued the policy no.202007-00000-00 alongwith the application no.040106181120905770901 for the coverage of paddy crop in village of Dachaur (62). It is further pleaded that crop insurance in question was done under PMFBY which operates on area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as an insurance unit. For all major crops, insurance unit is Gram Panchayat and for minor crops, insurance units is Taluk. 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. It is further pleaded that 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- Dachaur (62), 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         Farmer        Actual        Threshold    Claim

                                                  Type             Yield         Yield 

                                                            (AY)         (TY)

Paddy                Karnal      Dachaur         -                3403.0815          3332.7         0

 

 

 

Based upon the calculation of the claim Rs.0, Hence the complainant are 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.2. 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 complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of survey report Ex.C2, copy of bank statement Ex.C3, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2015-2016 Ex.C4, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C5, copy of postal receipt Ex.C6, copy of postal order Ex.C7, copy of application under RTI Ex.C8, Ex.C10 and Ex.C12, postal order Ex.C9, Ex.C11 and Ex.C13, envelope Ex.C14 and closed the evidence on 01.02.202 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Kumar Abhay, Senior Branch Manager Ex.RW2/A, copy of bank statement Ex.OP1, copy of RTGS PMFBY premium Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 09.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Arvind Singh Naruka Ex.RW1/A, copy of insurance acknowledgement receipt Ex.R1, copy of tabulation sheet Ex.R2, copy of Blockwise actual yield Ex.R3, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 09.12.2022 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 complainant, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his crop from OP no.2 through OP no.1. He further argued that the complainant had sown paddy crop in 15 acres of land in the month of June/July, 2018 but due to heavy rainfall, the crop was badly damaged and thereafter, complainant informed the Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal on 24.09.2018 but Inspecting Committee had inspected the fields of complainant on 22.10.2018 and come to the conclusion that complainant has suffered loss 80% loss in his 15 acres of land. 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.

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 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.

11.           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 Dachar, 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.  He further argued that there is no loss in village Dachar, hence the claim of the complainant was rightly declined and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

13.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land in village Dachar 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.

14.           Due to damage of crop, on 24.09.2018 complainant moved an application to Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal for inspection of the damaged crop. The team of Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal alongwith representative of OP no.2 has inspected the crop of complainant on 22.10.2018 and submitted report Ex.C2 wherein it is mentioned that the crop has already been harvested and as per version of the complainant he has suffered 80% loss in his 15 acres of land. The complainant moved the application to Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal on 24.09.2018 but Inspecting Committee has inspected the field of complainant on 22.10.2018 i.e. after 28 days after the application. Due to water logging in the field, to save the remaining crop, complainant harvested the crop, if the damage crop had not been harvested, then entire crop would be damaged. It was the committee, who has not inspected the field of complainant timely. The complainant cannot be blamed for the wrong act of the said Committee.

15.           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 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 individually not consolidated by the Agriculture Department, which has been proved from the survey report Ex.C2. Complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of insurance company OP no.2 inspected the field of complainant and on the statement of the complainant had 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 present at the time of inspection of the field of complainant.  So, the insurance company OP no.2 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, no liability of OP no.1 is made out.

16.             The complainant has claimed Rs.9,00,000/- for the loss of his crop but he has not produced any such evidence, vide which it can be ascertained that how much loss he had suffered. But the complainant has suffered a loss due to damaged of crop in 15 acres land. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that interest of justice will be met if we allowed the compensation to the tune of Rs.12,000/- per acre to the complainant. The complainant has suffered loss in 15 acres of land. Hence, complainant is entitled for Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.12,000x15=1,80,000/-) alongwith interest, compensation for mental pain and agony and litigation expenses.

17.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 i.e. insurance company to pay Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant 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.2 to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complaint against OP no.1 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:03.05.2023                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member