Haryana

Kaithal

CC/20/2022

Shish Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Yash Pal

20 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                        Complaint No.:20/2022.

                                                        Date of institution:19.01.2022.

                                                        Date of decision:20.09.2023.

Shish Pal son of Sh. Narsi, resident of Village Barout, District, Kaithal.

 

                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. The Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Park Road, Bandrana, Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal.
2. Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company, through its Branch Manager, Cabin No. 7, third Floor, Agro Maal Sector-20, Panchkula, 134117. 
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal office at Secretariat, Kaithal.                                                        
   1.  

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection, Act

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.                  

 

Present:     Shri Yashpal, Advocate for the complainant.

                Shri O.P. Gulati, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                Shri Amit Kaushik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

                Shri Pushpinder Saini, G.P. for OP No.3.

 

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

1.             Shish Pal-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the OPs.

2.             It is alleged in the complaint that complainant is permanent resident of village Barout, Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal and having 5 acre  of land in that village. He is also having its account with OP No.1 bearing No.82268800003515. He sown Rabbi (Wheat) crop in the season of 2019-2020 in his said 5 acres land and got insured the same under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) from OP No.2 through OP No.1 and the premium of Rs.1051.67/- was paid to OP No.2 through OP No.1. There were heavy rains in the area for the month of February-March, 2020 on the period, due to which, his standing crops was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OP No. 3 and concerned official of OP No. 3 alongwith officials of OP No. 2 visited the flood affected area and took photographs of field and assessed the damage of wheat crop of 5 acres of land to the tune of 50-55%. He visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but they failed to release the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their respective written statements.

4.             OP No.1, in its written statement specifically stated that he has no 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) and notification dated 17.06.2016 issued by Government of Haryana bearing memo No. 3009/Agri.II (I)-2016/10854 and notification 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 on 09.12.2019 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2019-2020 amounting to Rs.1051.67/- and as such premium amount was transferred in the account of OP No. 2. There is no deficiency in service on their part, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

5.             OP No.2 filed the written version mentioning therein 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 and for submitting reply accordingly.  The 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 institutions that are part of this scheme.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering OP.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.             The OP No.3, in its written statement 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.   

7.             The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents annexure C-1 to annexure C-3 and closed his evidence.

8.             On the other hand, OP No.1, in order to support its case, tendered affidavit EX.RW1/A along with documents annexure R-9 to annexure R16 and closed its evidence. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents annexure R1 to annexure R8 closed the same. The OP No.3, in support of its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and closed its evidence.

9.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

10.            Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is permanent resident of village Barout, Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal and having 5 acre of land in that village. He is also having its account with OP No.1 bearing No.82268800003515. He sown Rabbi (Wheat) crop in the season of 2019-2020 in his said 5 acres land and got insured the same under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) from OP No.2 through OP No.1 and the premium of Rs.1051.67/- was paid to OP No.2 through OP No.1. There were heavy rains in the area for the month of February-March, 2020 on the period, due to which, his standing crops was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OP No. 3 and concerned official of OP No. 3 alongwith officials of OP No. 2 visited the flood affected area and took photographs of field and assessed the damage of wheat crop of 5 acres of land to the tune of 50-55%. He visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but they failed to release the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has argued that as per PMFBY, Scheme the bank debited from respective KCC account of complainant on 09.12.2019 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2019-2020 amounting to Rs.1051.67/- and as such premium amount was transferred in the account of OP No. 2.   

12.            Ld. counsel for the 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 and for submitting reply accordingly.  The 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 institutions that are part of this scheme.  Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-insurance company 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 bearing revision petition No.4589 of 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.       

13.            Sh. Pushpinder Saini, GP for the 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 has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT at the time of arguments, which is Mark-A on the file.   

 14.           So far how much loss the complainant has suffered is concerned.  As per Annexure-R16, the insured land is 1.11280 hectare which comes as approximately 2.75 acre.  So far the liability is concerned, if there was any discrepancy in the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) etc. of the farmers concerned, then it was required for the OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the said amount, within two months of cutoff date to the OP No.1 bank, but nothing has been done on the part of OP No.2 and this Commission rely upon in this regard on “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 the required for OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmers concerned to OP No.1 bank after pointing out any discrepancy on its end, within the period of cut off date of two months, 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 this regard and kept the premium amount with 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 amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. As such, the OP No.2 insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his crop.

16.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5832.57 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 2.75 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.16,040/- (Rs.5832.57 paise x 2.75 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Insurance Company.        

17.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.16,040/- 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 OP No.2-Insurance Company is 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 accordingly against OP No.2-insrance company and dismissed against OPs No.1 & 3.     

18.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP No.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 the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.09.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),          

                        Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.