Haryana

Karnal

CC/657/2019

Jasbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 657 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.25.09.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:25.07.2022

 

Jasbir Singh (age 39 years) son of Shri Gurmeet Singh, resident of house no.3964, Dera Kaithal Road, Nissing, P.O. Nissing, District Karnal. Aadhar Card no.4473 0221 2154 mobile no.8295829677.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch at Nissing, District Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     SBI General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 388-389, 1^st floor, Karan Commercial complex, Old Mugal Canal, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

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

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                   Shri Subhash Chander, 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 owner of land measuring 5 acres situated in village Nissing, District Karnal. Complainant is the account holder of the OP no,1, vide account no.00465115004512 and is also having limit of Rs.3,45,000/-. The complainant has also taken insurance policy under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from the OP no.2 through OP no.1 and the premium of said insurance was deducted from the account of complainant. The premium was deducted by the OP no.1 regarding the insurance of crops for the year kharif 2018 amounting to Rs.2895.90p and for the year kharif 2019 amounting to Rs.3137/-. In the season of kharif, 2018 and 2019 the crops over the land measuring 5 acre of the complainant got destroyed due to the natural disaster. The complainant immediately informed the Agriculture Department regarding the said damages of crops of kharif 2018 and 2019 and accordingly the officials of the Agriculture Department as well as the officials of the insurance company got surveyed the damaged crops.   Thereafter, 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, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay the compensation of damages crop of the land of the complainant i.e. Rs.3,00,000/-and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.

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 has deducted premium from the account of the complainant regarding insurance of crops for the kharif 2018 amounting to Rs.2895.90p and for the kharif 2019 amounting to Rs.3137. It is further pleaded that the amount of compensation as alleged for damaged crop of complainant is to be given by the OP no.2. 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.

3.              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 the account no.0046511004512 which was mentioned in complaint but no such information regarding the particulars of the complainant claim available with the OP. 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 form 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.             Complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of statement of account  of year 2018 Ex.C1, copy of statement of account  of year 2019 Ex.C2, copy of advertisement/pamphlet of SBI & Haryana Government Ex.C3, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C4, copy of newspaper cutting dated 25.07.2019 Ex.C5, copy of certificate issued by OBC Bank Ex.C6, copy of bank statement dated 02.03.2020 Ex.C7, copy of application dated 26.09.2019 to Tehsildar  and Deputy Director Agriculture Ex.C8 and Ex.C9, copy of postal receipt Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 03.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit Raj Kumar Branch Manager Ex.P1 and copy of statement of account Ex.P2 and closed the evidence on 20.01.2022 by suffering separate statement

7.             OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Arvind Singh Naruka Ex.RW1/A, copy of insurance acknowledgement receipt Ex.R1, copy of survey report Ex.R2, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R3, copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 20.04.2022 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.             Complainant, while reiterating the contents of complainant, has vehemently submits that he has obtained cash credit limit for agriculture/loan from the OP no.1 under scheme of cash credit agriculture and for the purpose of loan. He had mortgaged his agriculture land in favour of OP no.1 and OP no.1 has provided crop insurance, under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna through the OP no.2 and OP no.1 had 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.2. He further submits that the he had sown paddy crop in his five acres of land in the month of June/July, 2018 and 2019 but due to natural disaster, the crop was badly damaged and thereafter, he approached the OPs as well as Deputy Director Agriculture and reported the whole incident. The officials of the Agriculture Department as well as the officials of the Insurance Company got surveyed the damaged crops. Thereafter, he requested the OPs several times to make the payment of compensation but they failed to pay the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per-contra, 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 lastly prayed for dismissal of 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 no.2 is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant and lastly 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 i.e. OP no.1 of the complainant and this fact is also proved from the statement of account of complainant Ex.C1 and Ex.C2/Ex.OP2.

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 alongwith representative of insurance company have inspected the crop of complainant and submitted his report Ex.R2, in which it was clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant on 24.09.2018 in village Nissing, District Karnal and observed the damaged crop in four and half acres of land to the extent of 65%. Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Nissing, District Karnal and same was damaged to the extent of 65% in four and half 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 four and half 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 had 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 OP no.2 has itself placed on record the copy of inspection report Ex.R2 which was conducted by agricultural department and representative of insurance company that on 24.09.2018 agriculture department and representative of insurance company inspected the field of complainant in his presence and found that his paddy crop in four and half acres of land was damaged to the extent of 65% due to water logging and complainant had suffered loss on account of damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018.  Thus, plea taken by the OP no.2  that OP no.2 has not paid the 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, is not tenable in the eyes of law.  

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 five acres of land but as per survey report Ex.R2 complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 65% in four and half acres only. Thus, the complainant is entitled for compensation for four and half 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.R2 complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 65% in four and half acres of his crop. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.1,31,625/-(29,250x4.5=1,31,625/-). The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the damages of his crop, but as per the survey report, the loss comes out  to be of Rs.1,31,625/-only. Further, the OP no.2 has not denied the fact that other farmers of village Nissing, District Karnal 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.           During the course of arguments OP no.2 submits that OP has received joint survey report regarding assessment of loss as per the government guidelines (PMFBY) and assessed claimed amount has been duly paid Rs.36,708/- to the complainant but OP has failed to prove this fact by placing on account statement of the complainant. Furthermore, it has not been proved on the record that the alleged amount is relating to the year 2018 or 2019. In case if the said amount has been actually paid by the OP to the complainant for the kharif of 2018, then OP has right to deduct the said amount from the awarded amount.

21.           In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the this complaint and direct the OP no.2 to pay the amount of Rs.1,31,625/- 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:25.07.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member