BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 315 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 13.06.2019.
Date of Decision : 13.12.2022.
Ram Kumar alias Shiv Lal son of Shri Man Ram, resident of village Gidder Khera, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.
2. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Sirsa.
3. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at 1st Floor, Opposite Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa (impleaded as op no.3 vide order dated 28.01.2020).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. H.S. Bishnoi, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.2.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
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).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist having land measuring 87 kanals 14 marlas being 1/2 share of land measuring 175 kanals 09 marlas (as detailed in para No.2 of the complaint) situated in village Gidder Khera, District Sirsa. He is having Kisan credit account No. 14440500000228 with op no.1. It is further averred that op no.1 bank deducted amounts of premium from the account of complainant for insuring his crops under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and his crop of Kharif, 2018 was also got insured by op no.1 bank after deducting premium amount for insurance. That whole of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 sown by complainant was destroyed due to attack of natural calamity and complainant suffered heavy loss. The complainant and his family are fully dependent upon agricultural income. It is further averred that complainant spent a sum of Rs.30,000/- per acre on sowing and cultivation of the crop. The complainant approached to the op bank and lodged his claim but op bank just in order to avoid its legal liability has denied the claim of complainant simply on the ground that land of complainant has been shown in village Panniwala instead of village Gidder Khera whereas complainant has already supplied copies of khasra girdawaris etc. to the op no.1 bank and this is gross negligence of op no.1 bank. That complainant also visited the ops several times in this regard and requested them to indemnify his claim but to no effect. It is further averred that op no.1 issued letter dated 27.5.2019 to op no.2 (it should be op no.3) intimating that due to clerical error village name of complainant was mentioned as Panniwala instead of village Gidder Khera and also requested to make necessary correction and to process the claim and therefore, it is clear that it is negligence of op no.1. It is further averred that according to Proforma-B village wise tabulation report of block Dabwali prepared by op no.2, the compensation amount of Rs.13,500/- per acre has been awarded to the farmers of village Gidder Khera but as complainant has suffered much loss out of the damage, hence, he is entitled to the compensation of Rs.30,000/- per acre. The complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that an amount of Rs.6410.13 has been debited in the account of complainant and said amount has been transferred to the Oriental Insurance Company Limited as premium for insurance of Kharif crop of complainant. The insurance company has accepted said premium and it was the duty of the insurance company to visit the spot to confirm the crops and land of complainant before acceptance of insurance premium. If there is any ambiguity, it was the duty of insurance company to refund the premium of complainant. It is further submitted that insurance company once accepted the premium, hence it is presumed that insurance company has accepted the premium and insured the crops of complainant. Hence, insurance company is liable to compensate the complainant if there is any loss to the complainant. It is further submitted that as per clause 19 (XII) of Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department Notification No. 948-Agri-II (I)- 2018/ 4332 dated 30.03.2018, 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 cut off date and in case of any correction must report to the State Govt., 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. Moreover, the answering op has forwarded the intimation to the insurance company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 in its separate written statement while taking certain preliminary objections has asserted that answering op is only liable to conduct the CCE’s experiments and yield basis claims are to be settled by the insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme, which have already been given by answering op within specific time period and as such prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. On being impleaded, op no.3 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.3 used to do the insurance of crop on the information supplied by the Bank i.e. op no.1 and there is no direct contract between the complainant and op no.3 as the present crop insurance is done under the group insurance scheme as per the terms and conditions of the “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna. It is further submitted that answering op had never received the premium for the insurance of the crop in the land of complainant situated in village Gidder Khera and same was not insured with the answering op. The banker of complainant UCO Bank has uploaded the name of the village as Panniwala in place of Gidder Khera on the National Crop Insurance Portal wrongly and did not make any effort to rectify the mistake and to correct the name of village in the Portal before the closure of the Portal. After closure of the portal, no correction can be made. It is further submitted that according to clause 17.2 of the revised operational guidelines of the PMFBY 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 payments of claim to them. It is further submitted that crops in the lands of complainant being situated in village Gidder Khera, he is not entitled to any claim for loss of his crops of village Gidder Khera. So, the answering op is not liable to pay any claim for loss of crop or any compensation to the complainant. It is further submitted that in the meeting of State Level Grievance Committee held on 14.01.2021, it was decided that where the name of the village mismatched, the bank have to pay the claim. The answering op cannot be held responsible for the wrongs committed by op no.1 bank, therefore, op no.1 is liable to pay the loss, if any to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C1, khasra girdawari Ex.C2, copies of pass book Ex.C3, Ex.C4, copies of adhar cards Ex.C5, Ex.C6, copy of ration card Ex.C7, letter dated 27.05.2019 Ex.C8, copy of pass book of Sandeep Singh son of Harcharan Singh Ex.C9, statement of account Ex.C10.
7. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture Ex.R1, copy of Haryana Government Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department notification dated 30.03.2018 Ex.R2 and tabulation sheet Ex.R3.
8. OP no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Manager & Principal Officer Ex,R4 statement of account Ex.R5.
9. OP no.3 has tendered clauses of PMFBY Ex.R6, minutes of meeting Ex.R7 and affidavit of Sh. Virender Kumar, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.R8.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
11. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. It is an undisputed fact between the parties that on 27.07.2018 an amount of Rs.6410.23 was debited from the KCC (loan) account of complainant by op no.1 as premium for paying the same to op no.1 insurance company for insuring the Kharif crop of complainant of 2018 as per scheme of the Central Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna as crops of loanee farmers were to be insured under the above said scheme. According to op no.1, said premium amount of Rs.6410.23 debited from account of complainant was remitted to op no.1 insurance company. According to complainant, his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in 87 kanals 14 marlas land in village Gidder Khera, District Sirsa was damaged but he has not been paid any compensation by ops whereas other insured farmers of village Gidder Khera have already received compensation and as such, he is entitled to claim amount at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre from ops. It is the case of complainant that since his land has been wrongly shown in village Panniwala on crop insurance portal, so no compensation for the damage of his crop was given whereas complainant being farmer of village Gidder Khera suffered loss of his cotton crop and as such he is entitled to above said amount from ops. The complainant in order to prove that he is having above said land in village Gidder Khera has also placed on file copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C1 and khasra girdawari Ex.C2 which reveals that he is having agricultural land in village Gidder Khera District Sirsa. The complainant has placed on record copy of pass book of one Sandeep son of Harcharan, resident of village Gidder Khera Ex.C9, the perusal of which reveals that on 07.05.2019, an amount of Rs.82789.72 received by him as insurance claim for the damage of his crop of Kharif, 2018. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has also placed on file letters/ reports of Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa dated 9.8.2022 and 22.8.2022 in which it is mentioned that average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 was 303.41 (Lint) Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Dabwali was 576.36 (Lint) Kgs. per hectare. Since the average yield of cotton crop of village Gidder Khera was less than threshold yield of block Dabwali, so as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss to the cotton crop in village Gidder Khera in kharif, 2018. So, it is proved on record that there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2018.
12. Now the question arises for consideration that from whom the complainant is entitled for claim amount for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018? The op no.3 insurance company has not denied the fact that it did not receive any premium amount of Rs.6410.13 for insuring cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 of complainant and defence plea of op no.3 insurance company is that since wrong name of village of complainant was uploaded on the Insurance Portal by op no.1 bank, therefore, complainant is not entitled to any insurance claim from op no.3. However, as the op no.3 has retained premium amount for insuring the crop of complainant, therefore, op no.3 is liable to pay claim amount to the complainant for the damage of his cotton crop in his above said land situated in village Gidder Khera, District Sirsa. In so far as wrong up-dation of village name of complainant on Insurance Portal by op no.1 bank is concerned, though it is proved on record that due to mistake on the part of officials of op no.1 bank village name of complainant was shown as Panniwala instead of Gidder Khera but it was also bounden duty of op no.3 insurance company which was receiving premium amount to verify the data of insured farmers as per operational guidelines of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. In this regard, to implement the above said scheme of Central Government during Kharif, 2018 and Rabi 2018-2019, Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department also made notification dated 30.3.2018, the relevant clause of which is reproduced as under:-Clause 19 (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 cut off 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.
13. In view of above said clause of Haryana Government notification, it was also duty of the insurance company to verify the data of insured farmers at its own but in the present case it is not proved on record that op no.3 insurance company after receiving premium amount from the op no.1 bank on behalf of complainant ever verified the data of insured farmers. So, the complainant is entitled to claim amount from op no.3 insurance company. The complainant has claimed claim amount of Rs.30,000/- per acre for the damage of his cotton crop in 87 kanals 14 marlas of land. However, for calculation of claim amount, a formula has been given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY which is as under:-
Threshold Yield minus Actyal Yield X Sum Insured.
Threshold yield
14. The complainant owns 87 kanals 14 marlas land in village Gidder Khera which is equal to 4.41 hectares. As mentioned above, the threshold yield of cotton crop of block Dabwali was 576.36 (Lint) Kgs. per hectare and actual yield of village Gidder Khera was 303.41 (Lint) Kgs. per hectare. The sum insured of cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 in Sirsa District was Rs.72000/- per hectare which is not in dispute and therefore, the calculation of the claim amount for the loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 of complainant in village Gidder Khera is as under:-
576.36 minus 303.41 multiple by
576.36 72000 X 4.41 hectare = Rs. 1,50,370/-.
15. From above calculation, it is evident that complainant is entitled to the claim amount of Rs.1,50,370/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 from op no.3 insurance company. At the same time, complainant is also entitled for compensation for harassment including litigation expenses from op no.1 bank for the mistake regarding uploading of wrong name of village of complainant. However, no liability of op no.2 of any kind is made out.
16. In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed against opposite parties no.1 and 3. OP No.3 insurance company is directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,50,370/- to the complainant whereas op no.1 bank is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the opposite parties no.1 and 3 are liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they will be liable to pay interest @6% on their respective payable amounts to the complainant from the date of order till actual realization. However, complaint qua op no.2 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President
Dt. 13.12.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
