Haryana

Kaithal

CC/155/2022

Ram Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,HDFC Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kirpal Singh

16 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.155/2022.

                                                     Date of institution: 09.06.2022.

                                                     Date of decision:.   16.11.2023

 

 Ram Chander son of Sh. Shadi Ram resident of Village Kutabpur, Tehsil        and District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, Plot No.77/10 and 78/10, near Pehowa Chowk, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Office Cabin No. 07, 3^rd Floor, Agri. Mall, Sector-20, Panchkula (Haryana).
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No.305, Secretariat, Kaithal.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.   

                       

Present:     Sh. Kirpal Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the respondent No.1.

                Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sunil Kumar, PO, Rep. for respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

Ram Chander-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

1.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned and possessed land measuring  15.2 acre (122 Kanal 13 Marla), detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint. It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.50200017851609 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant for the year 2019-2020 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.5811.75/- paise on 06.12.2019 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 06.03.2020 TO 14.03.2020, the Rabi (Wheat) crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to respondent No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of complainant alongwith officials of respondent No.2 and assessed 35% damage of wheat crop in his agriculture land.  The complainant requested the respondents to pay the said amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.    

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  Respondents No.1 in its written statement specifically stated that he has not role about issuance of crop insurance policy or about processing and adjudication of insurance claim pertaining to present complaint. It is stated that as per operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) an notification dated 30.03.2018 issued by Government of Haryana bearing memo No. 941-Agri-II (i) 2018/4332 dated 30.03.2018 crops were require to be covered under this PMFBY, Scheme compulsorily. It is further submitted that as per PMFBY, scheme the bank debited from respective KCC account  of complainant for Fasal Bima Yojna of wheat amounting to Rs.5811.75/- and as such premium amount was transferred in the account of OP No. 2 vide UTR/Transaction Number N355191014532600 on 21.12.2019. There is no deficiency in service on their part, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.  

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version mentioning therein that that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of wheat crop has been affected in village as per averments of the complaint, the loss of wheat crop has been affected in village Kutabpur Tehsil and District Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as Heavy Rain Fall which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme and to prove the same, no documentary proof of any kind has been annexed with the complaint; that role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other instructions that are part of this scheme’ that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of wheat crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim. So, the complainant was not entitled for yield loss as per terms and conditions of the scheme. Moreover, under localized based claim, complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to answering OP within stipulated period of 48 hours of alleged loss to process the claim as per terms and conditions of the scheme. On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent. To other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

4.             Respondent No.3 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the fields of complainant as-well-as other farmers were inspected by the officials of answering respondent randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R9 to Annexure-R16, OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.  . 

7.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned and possessed land measuring  15.2 acre (122 Kanal 13 Marla) comprised in situated at village Kutabpur, Tehsil and District Kaithal. It is further argued that the complainant has an account No.50200017851609 with the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of wheat for the period 2019-2020 with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.5811.75/- paise on 06.12.2019 as insurance premium amount.  It is further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 06.03.2020 TO 14.03.2020, the Rabi (Wheat) crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined. The complainant instantly reported the matter to respondent No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of complainant alongwith officials of respondent No.2 and assessed 35% damage of wheat crop in his agriculture land.  The complainant requested the respondents to pay the said amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.

9.             On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OP No. 1 argued that as per PMFBY, Scheme the bank debited from respective KCC account of complainant for Fasal Bima Yojna of wheat amounting to Rs.5811.75/- paise and such premium amount was transferred to respondent No.2 in their account vide UTR/Transaction No.N355191014532600 on 21.12.2019 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.   So, there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 1.

10.            Ld. Counsel for OP No. 2-Insurance Company has argued that the complainant farmer has not mentioned NCI-Portal application number as well as farmer ID number in the complaint as the same particulars are required to ascertain their crop insurance coverage. The role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institutions that are part of this scheme. It is further argued that the intimated of crop loss was rejected because crop in intimated village Dhand Block Pundir, Kaithal was not insured for the complainant farmer on the NCI-Portal..  It is further argued that as per data uploaded on NCI Portal by bank, the alleged land of Village Kutabpur related to complainant is not insured under the scheme with the answering respondent whereas wheat crops of the complainant in village Dhand (9), Kaithal is insured on the NCI-Portal and this respondent has already settled claim of Rs. 2261.25/- during season Rabi 2019-2020 to the complainant farmer on 14.08.2020 through URT No. AXISP00139057322.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 2.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent. It is further argued that the loss of wheat crop has been affected in village Kutabpur Tehsil and District Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as Heavy Rain Fall which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme which shows as Ex. R13 Para No. 4 Sub Para No. IV. i.e “Localized Calamities; Loss/Damage resulting from occurrence of Identified localized risks of hailstorm, landslide and inundation affecting isolated farms will be covered”.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint

11.            Sh. Sunil Kumar, GP for OP No. 3-Agriculture Department has stated that the claim does not arise on average yield because in the present case, average yield is greater than threshold yield. He further argued that the survey was conducted at village level randomly and report was prepared at the spot.

12.            During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for OP No. 2 has vehemently contended that the crop loss intimation was given by the Op No. 1-bank regarding village Kutabpur in the column of farmer’s address instead of village Dhand as per loss  assessment application (annexureR16). From perusal of this document, we found that village name of complainant was mentioned as Kutabpur and in this regard, contentions of Op No. 2 is believable. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank and another Vs. Singam Siva Sankar Reddy and another passed by Hon’ble National Commission on 30.10.2015 bearing revision petition No. 2673 of 2013; Canara Bank Vs. Seth Prakash Chandra Jain and another passed by Hon’ble National Commission on 11.12.2013 and Syndicate Bank Vs. Ranga Reddy & others passed by Hon’ble National Commission on 20.09.2020 bearing revision petition No. 2143-2148 of 2009. The OP No. 2 further contended that as per “Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP No. 1 bank is liable to pay the claim account to the complainant for his wrong/mistake. Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna is relevant and extract part of Sub-clause 17.02 of Clause 17 “Collection of Proposals and Premium form Farmers read as under:-

        “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.”

13.            So as per above guidelines, it is clear that for any mistake in uploading/providing the data of farmer concerned on the Government Portal regarding PMFBY, the concerned bank is liable to pay the claim account, if any to the farmer concerned for his wrong/mistake, as such, in the case in hand, it is admitted fact that OP No. 1 bank uploaded/provided wrong village name of complainant as Dhand instead of Kutabpur, which amount to deficiency in service on the part of Op no. 1 bank, as such, as per above guidelines, OP No. 1 bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any to the complainant. In this regard, view of this commission is also fully supported by the case law title Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & another Vs. Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & anr. (Mentioned Supra), wherein, it is held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) Crop Insurance Scheme- Insurance premium debited in loan account of agriculturists by the bank by receiving service charges on premium collected from agriculturists – Damage of groundnut crops – Repudiation of claim – Deficiency in service – Complaint allowed against bank in appeal – Legality of – There was relationship of consumer and service provider between agriculturists and bank – As per Clause 19 of guidelines to Financial Institutions, Financial Institutions were to be only responsible for all omissions and commissions committed by them – Prima facie, error has been committed by bank in remitting amount of premium recovered from agriculturists while sending it to insurance company in wrong name of village of complainants – Bank rightly held liable to reimburse all the losses.

14.            To rebut the contention of OP No.2, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has contended that for the sake of discussion, if it is assumed that OP No.1 bank uploaded wrong data/village name of complainant on the Government Portal, even then, it was required for OP No.2 insurance company to verify the data of farmers concerned within two months of cutoff date and drawn attention of this Commission towards “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018” and its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii is relevant, which reads as under:-

“xxii) The Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the Insurance Company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim”.

 

15.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was  required for OP No.2 insurance company to verify the data/information provided by OP No.1 bank regarding the farmers concerned within the period of cutoff date of two months and if any discrepancy/mistake is found by OP No.2, then intimate to OP No.1 bank in this regard, but in the case in hand, OP No.2 had neither raised any objection within the period of cutoff date of two months nor intimated to OP No.1 bank regarding any discrepancy in the data uploaded by it, and now at the time when crops of complainant was destroyed and he is demanding the claim amount as per policy from it, then OP No.2 refused to pay the same on this flimsy ground, which also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. From perusal of case file as Ex. C2 page No. 1 to 4, which shows that heavy rainfall in that area on 06.03.2020 to 14.03.2020 Wheat crop of the complainant damaged/ruined due to ‘Rainwater lodging’.

16.            So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that OP No.1 bank had uploaded/supplied wrong village name of complainant to OP No.2 insurance company and then, on receiving the said wrong information by OP No.2 from OP No.1, OP No.2 had not raised this objection/issue with OP No.1 bank within the period of cutoff date of two months, as such, both the OPs are deficient in providing the services to the complainant, due to which, the complainant suffered mental agony, physical harassment as well as financial loss. So, in view of “Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY)” and “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018”, both the OPs, for their above act, severally and jointly, are liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant, for the loss suffered by him due to destroy of his standing crops.

17.            So far how much loss the complainant has suffered is concerned.  As per Annexure-R16, the insured land is mentioned as 6.15 hectare which comes as approximately 15.20 acre.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3851.69 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 15.20 acre, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.58545.68/-. 

18.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OPs No.1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay the amount of Rs.58545.68/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  The OPs No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted against OPs No.1 & 2 and dismissed against OP No.3.   

19.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs No.1 & 2 shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt. 16.11.2023

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Nitin Kumar Steno-typist