View 942 Cases Against Syndicate Bank
Jagdish Sharma filed a consumer case on 01 Aug 2023 against Syndicate Bank in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is CC/519/2021 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Aug 2023.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.
Complaint No. 519 of 2021
Date of instt.24.09.2021
Date of Decision:01.08.2023
Jagdish Sharma (above 67 years) son of Shri Tara Chand, resident of village Samalkha, P.O. Beejna, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal.
…….Complainant.
Versus
…..Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.
Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member
Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member
Argued by: Complainant in person.
Shri Vikas Sharma, counsel for the OP no.1.
Shri Naveen Khetarpal counsel for the 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 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. Complainant is owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 01 acres situated in village Samalkha, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. The complainant is the account holder of OP no.1, vide saving account no.82552030004434 and is also having Kisan Credit Card. The complainant has also taken insurance policy under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Yojna from the OP no.2 through OP no.1 and the premium of insurance policy has been directly deducted from the account of complainant no.06655115003902. The said premium has been deducted by the OP no.1 for the insurance of paddy crop for the year 2018. Unfortunately, in the season of paddy 2018, the crop spread over the complainant’s land got destroyed due to heavy rainfall. Complainant immediately informed the Agriculture Department regarding the damage of crop and accordingly the officials of the Agriculture Department as well as the official of the insurance company got surveyed the damage crop. The complainant has suffered a total loss of Rs.60,000/- due to natural disaster, as such complainant is entitled to recover the same. Complainant visited to the office of OP no.2 several times and requested to make the payment of compensation of damage crop but OP no.2 flatly refused to pay the claim. Complainant has suffered a mental pain, agony and harassment due to such a malpractice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation of damages crop of the complainant, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation costs.
2. On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 in compliance of the scheme launched by the Government of India in the name of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, the required amount was debited from the account of complainant and the same was remitted in the account of insurance company. 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 the policy no.206259-0000-00 has been issued to complainant alongwith the application ID no.040106181121253995301 under the coverage of paddy crop in village Chochran (42) as per the PMFBY guideline. It is further pleaded that OP has received joint surveyor report regarding assessment of loss as per government guideline, the OP has assessed the loss of Rs.35697.32/- as localize manner. The assessed amount has been proceeded at the part of the insurance company and same has been disbursed in complainant’s bank. Hence there is no liability at part of insurance company. It is further pleaded that as per complaint, the village name of complainant is Samalkha while OP no.1 bank uploaded name of village of farmer Chochran at Government portal. According to clause no.XVII (i) (ii) and clause no.XXIV (iv) of Central Government guideline for PMFBY misreporting by the bank/branch regarding details of farmer name, village, crop name season, premium etc. and uploaded on the government portal, the bank shall be liable for misreporting, compensation and consequences. 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- Chochran (42), 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 Chochran - 3257.42 2779.20 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. OP no.3 in his reply stated that complainant informed to the Agriculture Department regarding his damaged crop within time after that the Department sent it to OP no.2 for doing survey of the damaged crop within time given by Department in form no.2. As per the PMFBY notification no.941-Agri-II (1)-2018/4332 dated 30.03.2018, clause no.19(XXI) (c), OP no.2 is responsible to complete the loss assessment process within 10 days, but OP no.2 failed to do so. OP no.2 took 30 days to complete its survey and submission of report. This is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.
5. Parties then led their respective evidence.
6. Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of survey report Ex.C1 and closed the evidence on 31.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jaswinder Singh Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 12.06.2023 by suffering separate statement.
8. Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitender Dhabhai, Deputy Manager, Ex.RW1/A, copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R1, copy of fiver year Blockwise Average Yield and Threshold yield Rabi 2019-2020 Ex.R2, tabulation sheet Ex.R3, copy of guidelines under of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 01.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.
9. OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Project Officer Ex.OP3/A, copy of farmer intimation form Ex.OP1, copy of survey report Ex.OP2, copy of notification dated 30.03.2018 regarding implementation of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima yojna Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 01.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.
10. We have heard the complainant, learned counsel of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and representative of OP no.3 and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
11. Complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint and submitted that he has obtained cash credit limit for agriculture/loan from the OP no.1 OP no.1 has provided crop insurance, under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna through the OP no.2 and OP no.1 had debited the insurance premium from his account and the said amount was transferred in the account of OP no.2. He further submitted that he had sown paddy crop in his field of one acre of land in the month of June/July, 2018 but due to heavy rainfall, the crop was completely damaged and thereafter, he approached the Deputy Director Agriculture. The officials of the Deputy Director Agriculture and representative of OP no.2 visited at the site after a long gap of about a month. He requested the OPs several times to make the payment of compensation but they failed to pay the same and lastly refused to pay the same and 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 i.e. OP no.2, 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 of OP no.2 argued that the OP has received joint surveyor report regarding assessment of loss as per government guideline, the OP has assessed the loss of Rs.35697.32/- as localize manner. The assessed amount has been proceeded at the part of the insurance company and same has been disbursed in complainant’s bank. He further argued that in the present case, as the Actual Yield kilogram/Hectare was more than Threshold Yield Kilogram/Hectare for crop:- paddy, in village- Chochran (42), which is respectively crop insured by and insurance unit of complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit under the policy and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
14. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.
15. Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land in village Samalkha 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.
16. Due to damage of crop, complainant moved an application to Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal on 26.09.2018 for inspection of the damaged crop but the team of Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal and representative of OP no.2 have inspected the crop of complainant on 27.10.2018 after one month and submitted its report Ex.C1/OP3/2, in which it clearly mentioned that they have received the intimation regarding damage of crop on 26.09.2018 and they inspected the land of complainant in village Samalkha on 27.10.2018 and prepared the abovesaid report. In said report it has been clearly mentioned that complainant has intimated on 26.09.2018 and Committee inspected the crop of the complainant in village Samalkha and observed that the there was water logging and the crop has already been harvested. OP no.2 has also alleged that OP has assessed the loss of Rs.35697.32/- as localize manner and same amount has been disbursed in the complainant’s bank. When the crop of the complainant falls in the village Samalkha, the question for disbursing the claim in the complainant’s bank does not arises at all.
17. Moreover, OP no.1 bank has also relied upon 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.
18. In rebuttal, learned counsel for OP no.2 has relied upon the minutes of 4th 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.”
19. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has submitted that 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.
20. In the present case, the insurance company 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. Whereas complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of OP no.2 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. So, the insurance company OP no.2 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.
21. Now, we observe the entitlement of the complainant regarding claim amount for the damage of their paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant had sown paddy crop in one acre of land and sought relief of Rs.60,000/- on account of financial loss but he has not placed on file any cogent and convincing evidence to prove such huge loss. If the Committee has not inspected the field of the complainant within stipulated period for that complainant cannot be blamed. In these circumstances, it would be justified, if the reasonable compensation be awarded to the complainant on account of financial loss, mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
22. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OP no.2 i.e. insurance company to pay the amount of Rs. Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of the crop alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of the present complaint till its actual realization. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and towards the litigation expenses. However, complaint against OPs no.1 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:01.08.2023
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Karnal.
(Vineet Kaushik) (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)
Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.