Haryana

Kaithal

245/21

Rajpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sanjeev Moudgil

01 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.245/2021

                                                     Date of institution: 08.10.2021

                                                     Date of decision:01.09.2023.

Rajpal @ Pali Ram S/o Sh. Rai Singh, r/o Village Geong, Tehsil and  District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, UCO Bank Branch Dhand, District Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal office at Room No. 305, Secretariat, Kaithal.

….Respondents.

        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. Sanjeev Moudgil, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the OPs No. 1 & 2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, GP for the OP No. 3.

               

ORDER

SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

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

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and owned agriculture land measuring 6½ acre situated at Village Geong, Distt. Kaithal, as per the details mentioned in the para no. 1 of the complaint.  The complainant has an account No.32150510000717 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of Kharif (paddy) for the period 2018-19 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.2773.89 paise on 23.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in that area on 23/24.09.2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined. The complainant duly submitted papers for claim to OP No.1 so that the OP No.1 forwarded the claim of complainant to the OP No.2-insurance company but through letter No.UCO/Dhand 2020-21/183 dt. 29.07.2020, the complainant came to know that while OP No.1 entering data on PMFBY Portal for complainant account for Season Kharif 2018, the OP No.1 entered the revenue village as Geong but inadvertently in system, it got picked up as some other village i.e. Dhand instead of Village Geong because of that the complainant did not receive the claim of PMFBY.  The complainant requested the OPs to pay the claim amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.             Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  OP 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; it is relevant to mention here that amount of premium of complainant in the sum of Rs.2773.89 paise alongwith premium of other loanee farmers as-well-as list of loanee farmers (including the complainant) and other required data was sent to OP No.2.  The payment of collective premium amount in the sum of Rs.2,44,456.59 paise was sent to OP No.2 on 13.08.2018 vide UTR No.UCBAH18225076542 and thus only Oriental Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant as per terms and conditions of policy.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

4.             OP No. 2 filed the written version mentioning therein 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 paddy crops of Village Geong which was allegedly insured through OP No.1-bank.  In fact as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Agricultural Department (Haryana Govt.), the actual yield is more than the threshold yield (actual yield is 3408.17 & threshold yield is 2660.4), hence nothing is payable by the Insurance company.  However, as regards localized claim the yield loss is nil, hence the complainant is also not entitled for the localized claim.  The complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy 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 the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent. The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             OP 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 OP randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint

6.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C24 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             On the other hand, the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4 and thereafter closed the evidence. OP No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith Annexure-R5 to Annexure-R14 and thereafter closed the same. OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Anneuxre-R15 and thereafter closed the same.

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

9.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has an account No.32150510000717 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of Kharif (paddy) for the period 2018-19 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.2773.89 paise on 23.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in that area on 23/24.09.2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined. It is further argued that the complainant duly submitted papers for claim to OP No.1 so that the OP No.1 forwarded the claim of complainant to the OP No.2-insurance company but through letter No.UCO/Dhand 2020-21/183 dt. 29.07.2020, the complainant came to know that while OP No.1 entering data on PMFBY Portal for complainant account for Season Kharif 2018, the OP No.1 entered the revenue village as Geong but inadvertently in system, it got picked up as some other village i.e. Dhand instead of Village Geong because of that the complainant did not receive the claim of PMFBY.  The complainant requested the OPs to pay the claim amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that the premium amount of Rs.2773.89 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 23.07.2018 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.2.  He has further argued that as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Agricultural Department (Haryana Govt.), the actual yield is more than the threshold yield (actual yield is 3408.17 & threshold yield is 2660.4), hence nothing is payable by the Insurance company.  However, as regards localized claim the yield loss is nil, hence the complainant is also not entitled for the localized claim.  He has further argued that there was mismatch in the village name of complainant as the OP No.1-bank had uploaded the village name of complainant as Dhand instead of Geong, so, complainant is not entitled for any relief.      

11.            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.   

12.            It is clear from the Annexure-C3 & Annxure-C4 that OP No.1 bank had uploaded/sent wrong insured village name of complainant as Dhand instead of Geong.  From perusal of this documents, we found that village name of complainant was uploaded as Dhand instead of Geong.  As per “Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY)”, OP No.1 bank is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant for his wrong/mistake. “Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY)” is relevant and extract part of sub-Clause 17.2 of Clause 17 “Collection of Proposals and Premium from Farmers”, reads 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 amount, 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 insured village name of complainant as Dhand instead of Geong, which amounts 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 titled Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & Anr., Petitioners Versus Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & Anr., Respondents, Revision Petition Nos.2673 of 2013 with Revision Petition No.1226 to 1230, 1287 to 1289, 1947 to 1965, 1967, 1968, 2032, 2033, 2035 to 2046 of 2014 and Revision Petition No.2695 of 2013 in Appeal No.761 of 2012. D.O.D. 03.10.2015 (NCDRC, New Delhi), 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.            So far the liability of OP No.2 is concerned, it was required for OP No.2 insurance company to verify the data of farmers concerned within two months of cutoff date and in this regard “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.

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 as the question of how much land was insured is concerned, the complainant has mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint that he has owned and possessed 6½ acre land and premium of Rs.2773.89 paise was deduced from his account by the bank on 23.07.2018.  In this regard, query was made to representative of OP No.3-Agriculture Department, who has stated that premium amount of Rs.595/- was assessed per acre in the year 2018, so, in this way, the land comes as approx. 4.66 acre (Rs.2773.89 paise ÷Rs.595/-). It is also clear from the copy of mortgage deed as per Mark-B that the area insured was 37 Kanals 6 marla.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6462.72 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 4.66 acre land, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.30,116/-. 

18.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the amount of Rs.30,116/- shall be given to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization which shall be given by OPs No.1 & 2 jointly and severally within 45 days from today.  The Ops No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.  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.:01.09.2023.

 

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.