Haryana

Karnal

CC/498/2019

Jasmer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Central Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Surender Chauhan

07 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 498 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.06.08.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:07.07.2022

 

Jasmer Singh, age 57 years son of Shri Bir Singh, resident of village Sidhpur, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal. Aadhar card no.8015-5354-9691.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, shop no.58, New Grain Market, Taraori, District Karnal.

 

2.     SBI General Insurance Company Branch at S.C.O. 388, Mugal Canal Market Karnal through its Manager/Authorized person.

 

                                                                      …..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: Sh. Surinder Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Vikas Bakshi 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 is owner of land measuring 20 acres. The complainant has obtained Kisan Credit Card Limit for agriculture/loan for the agriculture purpose from the OP no.1 under scheme of Kisan Credit Card launched by Prime Minister of India under the account no.3542628801 with the OP no.1 and for the purpose of loan, complainant has mortgaged his agriculture land in favour of the OP no.1. It is further averred that for the security of repayment of loan obtained by the complainant, the complainant has mortgaged his land with OP no.1 and OP no.1 has insured the crop under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from OP no.2. The OP no.1 has debited a sum of Rs.10867.86 on 31.07.2018 from the account of the complainant and said amount was remitted to OP no.2. The complainant had sown paddy crop in 20 acres of land in 2018 and due to heavy rain fall in the rainy season 2018, his paddy crop was totally damaged. Thereafter, complainant immediately approached the OPs as well as Block Agriculture Office and moved an application and reported the whole incident on 25.09.2018 as per the statutory condition of the Government and moved an application before the DDA, Karnal in order to assess the loss of the crop. On receipt of the application, the official of the OP no.2 visited the site and inspected the crop of the complainant and admitted that the crop is damaged to the extent of 30% per acre and official of OP no.2 assured the complainant that his claim would be settled. It is further averred the total loss comes to Rs.6,75,000/- in the field of the complainant. Complainant requested the OPs so many times to make the payment compensation of damage crop but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or other and lastly refused to pay the same. 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; locus standi; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 has obtained a group insurance policy from the OP no.2 and under the said group insurance policy, OP no.1 insured the crops of the complainant with the OP no.2 on payment of premium amount of Rs.10867.87, which were debited to the account of the complainant on 31.07.2018. The deduction of the said premium amount was duly intimated to the OP no.2, vide letter dated 24.04.2019. It is further pleaded that the grievance of the complainant is against the insurance company, in which OP no.1 has no role to play. 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 separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the complaint and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant never shared policy and application number with insurance company. Hence, insurance company was not able to trace the farmer details. It is further pleaded that crop insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna which operates area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as in insurance unit. For all major crops, insurance unit is Gram Panchayat and for minor crops, insurance unit 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. 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, in the absence of application number, OP is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP no.2 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 Agriculture Report Ex.C1, copy of letter dated 24.04.2019 regarding deduction of premium Ex.C2, copy of pass book of bank account of complainant Ex.C3, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C4, copy of email dated 13.03.2019 Ex.C5 and copies of Jamabandi for the year 2014-2015 Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 06.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vishesh Kumar Gupta, Branch Manager Ex.OPW1/A, copy of statement of account of complainant Ex.OP1, copy of Agriculture report Ex.OP2, copy of letter dated 24.04.2019 to the insurance company Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 31.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai, Deputy Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 31.05.2022 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 the complaint, has vehemently argued that OP no.1 bank of the complainant has deducted the premium amount of Rs.10867/- under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for insuring the crop of the complainant for the year 2018. He further argued that the crop of the complainant was damaged due to heavy rainfall and he approached the Agriculture Department and insurance company, who surveyed the damaged crop of the complainant. As per survey report, complainant has a loss to the extent of 30% in 5 acres of land and prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel of OP no.1 argued that the bank had sanctioned a loan to the complainant under Kishan Cash Credit Limit and accordingly, insurance premium has been debited. He further argued that crop insurance is a regulatory requirement for all the loanee farmers as per the operating guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. He further argued that the required amount of Rs.10867/- was debited on 31.07.2018 and the same was remitted to the account of OP no.2. The OP no.1 discharged his responsibility as warranted from him as per the scheme and shift to OP no.2, who did not act as per the norms of the scheme. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

11.           Learned counsel of OP no.2 argued 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 the State Government. He further argued that 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 complainant never shared the policy and application number and in the absence of application number, OP is  unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant. Hence, 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 and the crop of the complainant was insured with the 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 Banker of the complainant and this fact is also proved from the statement of account of complainant Ex.C3/Ex.OP1.

14.           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 Ex.C1/OP2, in which it was clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant on 28.09.2018 in village Sidhpur, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal and observed the damaged crop in five acres of land to the extent of 30%. Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Sidhpur, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal and same was damaged to the extent of 30% in five acres.

15.           In 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 in five acres was 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 complainant never shared the policy number and application number with the OP no.2. The complainant in order to prove damage to his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018 has also placed on record copy of inspection report Ex.C1/Ex.OP2, conducted by agricultural department and representative of insurance company which reveals that on 28.09.2018 agriculture department and representative of insurance company inspected the field of complainant in his presence and found that his paddy crop in five acres of land was damaged due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report Ex.C1/Ex.OP2 that paddy crop of complainant in five acres of land in village Sidhpur, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal was damaged to the extent of 30% and he had suffered loss on account of damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The OP no.2 has not paid claim amount to the complainant on the ground that the complainant never shared the policy and application number and in the absence of application number, OP no.2 is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant.  

16.           Learned counsel for OP no.2 has placed on file copy of the minutes of 4^th Meeting of State Level Grievance Committee held on 14.1.2021 Ex.R1, 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.”

17.           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, 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.

18.            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. Whereas complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of OP no.2 had 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 OP no.2 is liable to pay the claim.

19.           Now, we observe the entitlement of the complainant regarding the claim amount for the damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant had sown paddy crop in 20 acres of land but as per survey report Ex.C1/Ex.OP2 complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 30% in five acres only. Thus, the complainant is entitled for compensation for five acres only. As per document issued by Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Haryana, as 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. As per agriculture report Ex.C1/Ex.OP2 complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 30% in 5 acres of his crop. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.67,500/-(13500x5=67,500). The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- for the damages of his crop, but as per the survey report, the loss comes out  to be of Rs.67,500/-only. Further, the OP no.2 has not denied the fact that other farmers of village Sidhpur, tehsil Nilokheri having their land in this village, have not received any insurance claim amount against damage of their crop. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the abovesaid amount alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. However, no liability of OP no.1 is made out.

20.           In view of our above discussion, we partly allow this complaint and direct the OP no.2 to pay the amount of Rs.67,500/- 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.15,000/- 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:07.07.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member