Haryana

Karnal

CC/810/2019

Karan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Kumar Rathore

25 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No. 810 of 2019

                                                      Date of instt. 05.12.2019

                                                      Date of Decision: 25.01.2024

 

Karam Singh age 65 years son of Shri Salabat Singh, resident of village Arainpura, tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. Aadhar card no.339406787424.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, G.T. Road, Gharaunda, District Karnal.
2. State Bank of India General Insurance Company Branch At-SCO-388, Mugal Canal Market Karnal through its Manager/authorized person.
3. The Deputy Director Agriculture, opposite old Kucheri, G.T. Road, Karnal.

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

               

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

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Suman Singh……Member

 

Argued by:  None for the complainant.

                    Shri Manoj Kr. Sachdeva, counsel for the OP no1.

                    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 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 a small agriculturist. The complainant has obtained cash credit limit for agriculture/loan for the agriculture purpose from the OP no.1 under scheme of cash credit agriculture vide scheme code-CC321 and under the account no.560381002877205 with OP no.1 and for the purpose of loan, the complainant has mortgaged his agriculture land in favour of the OP no.1. For the security of repayment of the loan obtained by the complainant, the OP no.1 has provided a crop insurance to complainant since 30.07.2018 under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna through the OP no.2. The OP no.1 had been debiting the insurance premium in the abovesaid account of complainant from time to time for the insurance of the crop and the said account of complainant for the kharif of 2018, the total sum insured for the area of 5 acres of agriculture land. OP no.1 has transferred a sum of Rs.3093/- in favour of OP no.2 being the premium for insurance of crop of five acres. As per the terms and condition of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, if due to some reasons the insured crop is damaged or destroyed whether whole or any part of the same, in that eventuality, the compensation will be paid by the insurer i.e. OP no.2 to the complainant. The complainant had sown paddy crop in his field of 5 acres of land in the month of June/July 2018. On 21-22.09.2018, there was heavy rainfall with storm in the area of the complainant and due to same, water accumulated/stagnated in the field of the complainant and crop was badly damaged. Complainant immediately approached the OPs as well as Block Agriculture Officer and reported the whole incident within 24 hours as per statutory condition of the Government and moved an application before the DDA, Karnal in order to assess the loss of the crop. The DDA office forwarded the application to OP no.2. On receipt of application, the official of the Op no.2 visited the site and inspected the crop of the complainant and admitted that the crop is totally damaged and the officials of the Op no.2 assured the complainant that after completion of formalities, the claim of the complainant would be settled.

2.             It is further averred that the total income arising from one acre of paddy/kharif has been assessed at the rate of per hectare to the tune of Rs.73,500/- and per acre to the tune of Rs.29750/-. In this way, the total loss for five acres of land comes to Rs.1,48,750/-. Thereafter, complainant visited the OPs several times and requested them to make the payment of compensation but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Due to this act and conduct of Ops, complainant suffered huge financial loss, mental pain and agony and harassment etc. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

3.             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 is not liable to pay insurance claim amount to the complainant under PMFBY scheme. The insurance company is legally bound to pay insurance claim amount, if the complainant is found eligible for the insurance claim amount/compensation. It is further pleaded that meeting to discuss the pending disputes of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna was held on 11.09.2019 at 3.00 p.m. under the Chairmanship of Shri D.K. Jain, Zonal Manager (PNB) and Convener SLBC Haryana. The abovesaid meeting has been duly attended by the representatives of various banks, representatives of insurance companies and representatives from the Department of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare. In the said meeting the Chief Manager SLBC Haryana informed that a meeting was held on 02.07.2019 at 3.00 p.m. under the chairmanship of Shri Adjit Bala Ji Joshi, IAS Director General Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana. In the said meeting it has been decided that “cases where banks not entered data on portal, but premium deposit to insurance companies in time and premium not return by the insurance company in time, insurance company will pay the claim to the farmers as per farmer record”. It is further pleaded that after deduction of premium amount of said Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 with immediate effect has sent premium amount in the account of insurance company and the further procedure and proceedings was of the insurance company. Thus, there is no fault on the part of the OP no.1 bank. 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.

4.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant never shared policy and application number with insurance company. OP also checked the complainant details through his bank account, but no such information regarding the particulars of the complainant’s claim was available with the OP. It is further pleaded that crop insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna which operates or 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 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 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             OP no.3 in its reply stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op no.3 because office of DDA, Karnal done of formalities in proper time and manners. DDA, Karnal enquired the matter and moved application to SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. After that Insurance Company replied that the detail of the farmer is not found on the GOI portal. Therefore, they express their inability to entertain the claim. Bank’s responsibilities to insure the farmer on GOI portal.

6.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A and closed the evidence on 27.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nishant working as Branch Manager Ex.OPW1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.OP1, copy of notification dated 30.03.2018 Ex.OP2, copy of minutes of meeting dated 02.07.2019 Ex.OP3, copy of minutes of meeting dated 11.09.2019 Ex.OP4, copy of letter regarding closing of account Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 09.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nisahant Gera, Assistant Manager Ex.RW2/A, copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R1, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 09.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

10.           OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP3/A, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence on 09.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

11.           It is pertinent to mention here that arguments on behalf of OPs NO.1 & 2 have been heard on 11.09.2023 and arguments on behalf of OP No.3 have been heard on 29.11.2023. Thereafter case was adjourned for arguments on behalf of complainant but today none has put in appearance on behalf of complainant. If the present complaint is again adjourned, then the position would remain the same. It appears that the complainant is no more interested to pursue his case. The present complaint pertains to the year 2019. Hence, we have no other option to decide the present complaint on merits.

12.           We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

13.           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.

14.           Learned counsel of OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently 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 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint

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

16.           As per the version of the complainant he is owner of land measuring 5 acres and has sown the paddy crop in the year 2019 and same was damaged due to heavy rain and in this regard he had intimated to OP no.3 i.e. Deputy Agriculture Department and applied for compensation in the office of OP no.1. The Onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant, but complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence.  There is nothing on file to prove the fact that the complainant is owner of agriculture land and he has sown paddy crop over it. Furthermore, the complainant has also not placed on record any documentary evidence to prove the fact that he has moved an application before the Deputy Agriculture Department for determining the loss occurred in his fields. Moreover, in the complaint, complainant has not mentioned the date and month in which the crop of the complainant was damaged and when he has informed to the OP no.1.

17.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we found no merits in the complaint and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Dated: 25.01.2024                          

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)   

      Member                       Member