Haryana

Kaithal

45/20

Rajiv - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Hem Raj Wadhwa

11 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.45 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 23.01.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:11.04.2023.

Rajiv, aged about 29 years S/o Ved parkash alias Ved Pal S/o Nihala R/o Village Kichana, Tehsil Rajound, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, near IDBI Bank Kaithal through its Branch Manager, Kaithal.
2. Corporation Bank, Ambala Road, Kaithal Branch through its Branch Manager.
3. The Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Kaithal.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                Sh. V.D.Sharma, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

       Rajiv-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is the owner of land measuring 24 Kanals 13 Marlas, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint and got insured the same with the respondent No.1-insurance company under the Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) scheme.  It is alleged that the complainant had sown cotton crops in May, 2018 in his agriculture land measuring 24 Kanals 13 Marlas and due to rain fall, water logging in the cotton crops, the crops have been totally damaged and the complainant suffered huge losses.  It is further alleged that the respondent No.1 has debited the amount for Fasal Bima from the account of complainant bearing No.560381002125041 with the Corporation Bank, Kaithal-respondent No.2.  It is alleged that the respondent No.3 has published pamphlet regarding insurance of kharif crops for the year 2017-18 and also told about the insurance coverage of cotton crop is Rs.71,500/- per Hectare i.e. Rs.28,600/- per acre and complainant is owner of approximately 3 acres of agriculture land and damage of cotton crops in the said 3 acres of land, the loss caused due to water logging due to flood in the fields of complainant which comes to Rs.85,800/- (i.e. Rs.28,600/- per acre x 3 acres).  It is further alleged that despite repeated requests and demands, the respondent No.1 has not made the claim amount to the complainant.  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 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of cotton crop has been affected in Village Kichhana, Distt. Kaithal, due to the reason mentioned therein 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 institutions that are part of this scheme.  In the present complaint, the complainant is allegedly claiming for cotton crops of Village Kichhana which was allegedly insured through respondent No.2-bank but in fact the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent as the cotton crops was not insured by answering respondent.  Moreover, the banker of complainant i.e. respondent No.2 had not provided the correct data on National Crop Insurance Portal of Govt. of India or supply any proposal form etc. to the answering respondent due to the reasons best know to them.  In fact the name of the Village of the complainant was reported by respondent No.2 as Village Keorak & Siwan instead of Village Kichhana and complainant or his banker has failed to upload the correct data for insurance of crop, despite ample time given by Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmer Welfare for entering the data on NCIP to the Bank.  It is relevant to mention here that if any mistake is done by bank of complainant or other institution, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of cotton 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.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that till date no intimation has been received by answering respondent regarding loss of alleged crop.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that the answering respondent is only the agent of insurance company.  On the authorization of insurance company, the policy-holder is to deposit the amount of premium with the answering respondent transfers the same in the account of insurance company as such, the answering respondent is only the collecting agent of respondent No.1, who after collecting the premium amount use to transfer the same in the account of insurance company.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.     

4.             Respondents No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction and evasively denied all the facts contained in the complaint.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             To prove her case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith document Annexure-R1, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is the owner of land measuring 24 Kanals 13 Marlas, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint and got insured the same with the respondent No.1-insurance company under the Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) scheme.  It is argued that the complainant had sown cotton crops in May, 2018 in his agriculture land measuring 24 Kanals 13 Marlas and due to rain fall, water logging in the cotton crops, the crops have been totally damaged and the complainant suffered huge losses.  It is further argued that the respondent No.1 has debited the amount for Fasal Bima from the account of complainant bearing No.560381002125041 with the Corporation Bank, Kaithal-respondent No.2.  It is further argued that the respondent No.3 has published pamphlet regarding insurance of kharif crops for the year 2017-18 and also told about the insurance coverage of cotton crop is Rs.71,500/- per Hectare i.e. Rs.28,600/- per acre and complainant is owner of approximately 3 acres of agriculture land and damage of cotton crops in the said 3 acres of land, the loss caused due to water logging due to flood in the fields of complainant which comes to Rs.85,800/- (i.e. Rs.28,600/- per acre x 3 acres).  It is further argued that despite repeated requests and demands, the respondent No.1 has not made the claim amount to the complainant.  So, there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents.

9.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 argued that the loss of cotton crop has been affected in Village Kichhana, Distt. Kaithal, due to the reason mentioned therein 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 institutions that are part of this scheme.  In the present complaint, the complainant is allegedly claiming for cotton crops of Village Kichhana which was allegedly insured through respondent No.2-bank but in fact the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent as the cotton crops was not insured by answering respondent.  Moreover, the banker of complainant i.e. respondent No.2 had not provided the correct data on National Crop Insurance Portal of Govt. of India or supply any proposal form etc. to the answering respondent due to the reasons best know to them.  In fact the name of the Village of the complainant was reported by respondent No.2 as Village Keorak & Siwan instead of Village Kichhana and complainant or his banker has failed to upload the correct data for insurance of crop, despite ample time given by Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmer Welfare for entering the data on NCIP to the Bank.

10.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 argued that the policy-holder is to deposit the amount of premium with the respondent-bank transfers the same in the account of insurance company as such, the respondent No.2-bank is only the collecting agent of respondent No.1, who after collecting the premium amount use to transfer the same in the account of insurance company.

11.            Ld. G.P. for the OP No.3 argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.  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.

12.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.1 further contended that the OP No.2 bank is liable to pay the amount of his claim, if any, to the complainant, for his own above mistake/wrong declaration. To support his above contentions, it produced Operational Guidelines on the case file and its Para No.XVII is relevant, which reads as under:-

                “XVII. Important Conditions/Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks

        1.     Insurance companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intermediary or directly. 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.

        2.     In case of any substantial misrepresenting by nodal bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting.

        3.     Mere sanction/disbursement of crop loans and submission of proposals/declarations and remittance of premium by farmer/bank, without explicit intent to raise the crop, does not constitute acceptance of risk by insurance company.”

13.            So as per above Operational Guidelines, the OP No.2 bank is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant, for his own above mistake/wrong declaration. View of this Commission is fully supported by the case law cited (supra) by counsel for the OP No.1, in the case of Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & Anr., Petitioners Versus Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & Anr., Respondents (NC), 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.            In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP No.2 has wrongly reported the name of village of the complainant to the OP No.1 as Keorak & Siwan instead of Kichhana and also reported the wrong name of crop as paddy (dhan) instead of cotton.  So, keeping in view the abovementioned case law cited (supra) as well as Guidelines mentioned above, for his mis-reporting/mistake in uploading the wrong data of complainant on the Govt. Portal of PMFBY, the OP No.2-bank is liable to pay the claim of the complainant.

15.              In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.10041.61 paise per acre.  Hence, for 2 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.20,083/- (Rs.10041.61 paise x  2 acre).      

16.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-bank to pay Rs.20,083/- 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-bank 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 the OP No.2-bank and dismissed against OPs No.1 & 3. 

17.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent-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.:11.04.2023.

 

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.