Haryana

Karnal

CC/259/2019

Krishan Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, SBI General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Chander Parkash

05 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 259 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.10.05.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:05.04.2022

 

Krishan Chand age about 64 years son of Shri Lizza Ram, resident of village Barani Khalsa, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal. Aadhaar no.5231 4189 8073.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The Branch Manager, SBI General Insurance Company office at 101, 201, 301, Natraj Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri-Kurla road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069 through its Karnal Branch, 1^st floor, B.D. International School, no.388,389, Karan Commercial Complex, (old Mugal Canal), near Guru Harkishan School, Sector-13, Karnal through authorized signatory (Mob. No.90340-73051.

 

2.     Dena Bank, Branch Samana Bahu, District Karnal through its Manager Phone no.01745-263437.

                                                                      …..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: Shri Chander Parkash, counsel for complainant.

Shri Naveen Kheterpal, counsel for OP no.1.

Shri Lovekesh Machhal, counsel for 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 has obtained cash credit limit (KCC) from the Dena Bank, Branch Samana Bahu and having a saving account bearing no.065513031449. Complainant has taken the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from the OP no.1, vide application no.040106181121050986901. OP no.1 has taken premium of Rs.2380.66/- from the complainant and the said amount was deducted from the abovesaid saving account of complainant on 31.07.2018. OP no.1 has insured the crop of the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,19,033/- through OP no.2. The complainant has mortgaged his agriculture land situated at village Barani Khalsa and the pass book as well as the account details and particulars belonging to the complainant also proves that the complainant and his land falls in the jurisdiction of village Barani Khalsa, but the OP no.2 has inadvertently has mentioned the land belongs to the complainant situated at village Samana Bahu (30) instead of Barani Khalsa (34). As per the terms and conditions of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY), if due to some reasons the crop/harvest of the insured crop is damaged or destroyed whether whole or partly, in that eventuality, the compensation will be paid by the insurer i.e. OP no.1 to the complainant. The complainant had sown paddy crop in his field of four acres of land in the month of June/July, 2018 but there was heavy rainfall with storm in the area of the complainant, water accumulated/stagnated in the crop and the crop of the complainant was badly damaged. Complainant approached the OPs as well as Block Agriculture office and reported the whole incident. Complainant also moved an application to Block Agriculture Officer, on 29.09.2018 the officials of the office of Block Agriculture Officer visited at the site and inspected the damaged crop of the complainant and they prepared a report that in four acres of land, the paddy/kharif crop of the complainant was damaged to the extent of 70% and in the total average loss in four acres of land was assessed to the extent of 70%.

 2.            Further, for ascertaining the loss, as per the scheme, the total income arising from one acre of paddy/kharif has been assessed at the rate of per acre to the tune of Rs.29758.25/-.  In this way, on the basis of 70% loss, the loss of per acres comes to Rs.20,830/- and the total loss for four acres come to Rs.83,323/- (20830x4=83,323/-). Complainant visited to the OPs several times and requested them to make the payment of compensation of damage crop but both of the OPs every time gave lame excuses and prolonged the matter on pretext or the other and lastly refused to pay the compensation to the complainant just giving the simple reply that we have checked the data on portal and the crop village of the farmer on portal is stated as Samana Bahu but farmers crop village is stated Barani (34).  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.

3.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version, stating therein, that as per the PMFBY: Actual Yield (AY) kilogram/hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy (irrigated) in village:- Samana Bahu. Hence the complainant is not liable for any claim as per PMFBY guidelines. Furthermore, the complainant alleged in complaint, his land wrongly mapped in village-Samana Bahu by OP Bank during the crop portal booking. While, the complainant actual land covered under village-Barani (34). Whereas, the insurance company worked and booked the policies as per the available data on crop portal which were duly filled by authorized bank/intermediaries. In light of this the insurance company booked the complainant policy under the village of Samana Bahu. Provided that, if the insurance company booked complainant policy under village –Barani (34), where Actual yield (AY) has also was more than Threshold Yield (TY) for crop-paddy

Crop         District    Village         Farmer        Actual        Threshold    Claim

                                                  Type             Yield         Yield 

                                                            (AY)         (TY)

Paddy                Karnal      Barani       Loanee           3266.32    2581.38          0

(Dhan)                    

 

Therefore, in any case the complainant is not liable for compensation.  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-Samana Bahu, 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      Samana        Loanee       3390.36    2581.38          0

(Dhan)                    Bahu

 

 

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 to Rs.83,323/- for damages to the crop as claimed amount. 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 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that on 25.03.2019, OP no.2 made an e-mails to concern insurance company i.e. OP no.1 for non-payment of Fasal Bima to the complainant but in reply of concerned e-mail OP no.1 stated Kharif-2018 season was closed, so name of the village Barani Khalsa could not be rectified instead of Samana Bahu. Again on 04.04.2019 OP no.2 made a request through email to OP no.1 for rectification the mistake but OP no.1 did not give any satisfactory reply of the concerned request. Thereafter, on 08.04.2019 complainant made same request but OP no.1 did not give any satisfactory reply. On 29.04.2019, OP no.2 received a consolidated amount of Rs.10,12,163.51 through NEFT from OP no.1 for further crediting the amount of Fasal Bima being claim to the concerned beneficiaries, but at that time OP no.1 did not provide the list of beneficiaries and then OP no.2 pointed out the matter with OP no.1 and thereafter OP no.1 provided the list of beneficiaries. After receiving the list of beneficiaries, OP no.2 revealed that in most of the cases, village name of the beneficiaries did not match with the actual record with the OP no.2. So, in this regard, OP no.1 advised to OP no.2 through email “Credit the Claim of the Farmers as per the name and the account number of the Farmer which belongs to their Branch”. OP no.2 served the best service to the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service 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 qua OP no.2.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of inspection report regarding loss Ex.C1, copy of application/receipt number of PMFBY Ex.C2, copy of portal report of insurance company Ex.C3, copy of aadhar card of complainant Ex.C4, copy of passbook of complainant Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 16.01.2020 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Arvind Singh Naruka Ex.RW1/A, copy of insurance acknowledgment receipt Ex.R1, copy of tabulation sheet regarding actual yield and threshold yield Ex.R2, copy of  screenshot of portal Ex.R3, copy of guidelines under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP no.1  on 28.07.2021 by suffering separate statement.

8.             OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Kaushik Kumar Branch Manager Ex.OPW-1/A, copies of emails dated 25.03.2019, 26.03.2019, 08.04.2019, 09.04.2019 Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 respectively, copy of email regarding rectification of village name Ex.OP5, statement of account of complainant Ex.OP6, copy of account ledger print Ex.OP7, letter dated 30.04.2019 of Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare and closed the evidence on 16.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

9.             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.

10.           Learned counsel of complainant, while reiterating the contents of complainant, has vehemently argued that complainant has obtained cash credit limit for agriculture/loan from the OP no.2 under scheme of cash credit agriculture and for the purpose of loan. Complainant had mortgaged his agriculture land in favour of OP no.2. He further argued that for the security of repayment of the loan, OP no.2 has provided crop insurance, under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna through the OP no.1 and OP no.2 had been debiting the insurance premium from the account of the complainant from time to time for the insurance of crop and the said amount was transferred in the account of OP no.1. He further argued that as per the terms and conditions of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, if due to some reasons the crop/harvest of 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.1 to the complainant. He further argued that the complainant had sown paddy crop in his field of four acres of land in the month of June/July, 2018 but due to heavy rainfall, the crop was badly damaged and thereafter, complainant approached the OPs as well as Deputy Director Agriculture and reported the whole incident. Officials of the Deputy Director Agriculture visited at the site and inspected the damaged crop of the complainant and found damage to the extent of 70% in total four acres of land. The complainant 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. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

11.           Per-contra, learned counsel of OP no.1 argued that Actual Yield (AY) kilogram/hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy in village Smana Bahu, hence the complainant is not liable for any compensation. 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 as per Ex.R3 i.e. screen short of portal, the name of village is mentioned as Samana Bahu by OP no.2 instead of village Barani and there is no loss in village Samana Bahu, hence the claim of the complainant was rightly declined. Thus, there is no fault on the part of the insurance company and OP no.1 is not liable for the wrong act committed by OP no.2 i.e. bank and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           Learned counsel for OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of its written version, has vehemently argued that bank had sanctioned a loan to the complainant 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 bank acts as an intermediary in the crop insurance process. The bank debits crop insurance premium from borrower’s account as per the guidelines mentioned in the crop insurance notification issued for specific cropping season under PMFBY. In the present case, bank also debits crop insurance premium from the account of complainant and same was transferred in the account of OP no.1 i.e. insurance company. He further argued that on 29.04.2019 OP no.2 received a consolidated amount of Rs.10,12,163.51 from the OP no.1 for further crediting the amount of Fasal Beema being claim to the concerned beneficiaries but at that time OP no.1 did not provide the list of beneficiaries and then OP no.2 pointed out the matter with OP no.1 and thereafter OP no.1 provided the list of beneficiaries. After receiving the list of beneficiaries OP no.2 revealed that in most of the cases village name of the beneficiaries did not match with the actual record of OP no.2. Then OP no.2 advised OP no.1 through email to credit the claim of the farmers as per the name and the account number of the farmer. Thus, OP No.2 is not at fault, therefore, fault if any, was of OP no.1, hence present complaint qua OP No.2 may kindly be dismissed.

13.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land in village Barani Khalsa, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal, and had obtained crop loan from OP no.2 (bank)  and OP no.2 had deducted premium amounts for insurance of crop on behalf of OP no.1 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. It is also an admitted fact that the insurance premium was duly transferred in the account of OP No.1 by the OP No.2.

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, in which it clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant in village Barani Khalsa and observed that damaged crop in four acres of land to the extent of 70%. Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Barani Khalsa and same was damaged to the extent of 70% but name of village of his land has been wrongly mentioned by OP no.2 bank in the insurance portal as village Samana Bahu instead of Barani Khalsa. The case of the OP no.1 totally based upon the village Samana Bahu but infact the land of the complainant falls in the village Barani Khalsa.

15.           Learned counsel for the OP no.1 has also taken a plea that if the insurance company booked complainant policy under village-Barani (34), where Actual Yield (AY) has also was more than Threshold Yield (TY) for crop-paddy. We found no substance in this contention of the OP no.1 because the crop of the complainant got surveyed individually not jointly by the Agriculture Department, which has been proved from the survey report Ex.C1.

16.           In so far as claim amount for the loss of complainant of paddy/Kharif, 2018 is concerned. The complainant had sown the paddy crop in his four acres of land and as per Agriculture Department Report, complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 70% in his land. As per version of the complainant the total income arising from one acre of paddy/kharif has been assessed at the rate of per acre to the tune of Rs.29758.25/-. The complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 70%, the loss of per acres comes to Rs.20,830/- and the total loss for four acres comes out to be Rs.83,323/- (20830x4=83,323/-). There is nothing on file to disbelieve the version of the complainant. Further, the OPs have not denied the fact that other farmers of village Barani Khalsa 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 said amount alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses.

17.           Now the questions arises as to whether which of the OPs is liable to pay above said amount of Rs.83,323/- on account of loss besides compensation amount for harassment etc. to the complainant?

18.           The OP no.2 Bank and OP no.1 insurance tried to shift liability on each other. Admittedly, the OP no.2 bank has wrongly entered the name of village of complainant as Samana Bahu instead of Barani Khalsa on the insurance portal. 

19.           No doubt, the OP no.2 bank has wrongly uploaded the name of the village of complainant. OP no.2 bank has placed on record letter Ex.OP8 dated 30.04.2019  of  Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmer’s Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, in which it is mentioned that the insurance companies are directed that in cases where the banks remit the premium after the cutoff data and the insurance company is not accepting the premium, in all such cases the premium amount should be returned by the companies to the concerned bank within 45 days from the date of remittance of such premium failing which the company shall have to accept the premium and settle the claim. There is nothing on file to prove the fact that OP no.1 insurance company had verified the data of the complainant as provided by the OP no.2 independently and sought any correction and OP no.1 has retained the premium amount of complainant and has not refunded the same to the complainant due to mismatch of village name of complainant. In these circumstances, in the present case, the insurance company OP no.1 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 and the plea of OP no.2 that actual yield was more than threshold yield in village of complainant is not relevant. Furthermore, the OP no.1 has also not proved by cogent and convincing evidence that actual yield of village of complainant i.e. Barani Khala was more than the threshold yield. Whereas complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of insurance company OP no.1 inspected the field of complainant and confirmed about the loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. Therefore, OP no.1 cannot go back and cannot avoid its responsibility.  Moreover, OP no.2 has made many requests to OP  no.1 for rectification of the mistake with regard to the name of the village but OP no.1 did not pay any heed to the request of OP no.2. This fact has been proved from the email Ex.OP5. Hence, OP no.2 is not at fault.  Therefore, the OP no.1 i.e. insurance company is only liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, no liability of OP no.2 is made out.

20.           In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the OP no.1 insurance company to pay the above said amount of Rs.83,232/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint  i.e. 10.05.2019 till its realization. We further direct the OP no.1 insurance company to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. 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 the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:05.04.2022

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)            (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                         Member