BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 78 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 01.04.2021.
Date of Decision : 07.08.2024.
Bansi Lal son of Shri Tikku Ram son of Shri Teja, resident of House No. 53, Street No.3, Village Rattakhera, Post Office Rampura Bishnoia, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Union Bank of India, Branch Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Opposite Janta Bhawan, Sirsa, through its Manager/ Authorized Officer.
3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Head Office at Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi- 110002.
4. District Agriculture Officer, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR …………………MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. M.K. Kaliramana, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party No.4.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018.
2. The complainant has alleged that he is an agriculturist and is owner in possession of land measuring 30 kanals approximately situated in village Ratta Khera, District Sirsa and whole of his family depends upon agricultural income. The complainant is having Kisan Credit card account bearing No. 637105030000732 with op no.1. That op no.1 bank deducted amount of premium for insurance of his Kharif and Rabi crop of 2018 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and complainant has also supplied copy of Girdawari to the ops which revealed that cotton crop was sown during Kharif, 2018. It is further averred that whole of the cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 sown by complainant was destroyed due to attack of rainy flood and natural calamity and complainant also suffered loss of Rs.25,000/- per acre on account of sowing crop. That complainant approached the ops and requested to pay claim amount for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 but none of the ops listened him and forced him to take rounds to their offices and have caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to claim amount at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre and since then he has been taking rounds to the offices of ops for getting genuine claim but they did not pay any heed to his genuine requests. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that on the asking of complainant, answering op got insured his Kharif 2018 crop as declared him with op no.2. Accordingly answering op has deducted a sum of Rs.2144/- on account of insurance premium from the loan account of complainant and has transferred the same to the account of op no.2. The answering op has not charged any penny for itself on account of insurance, hence there has been no liability of answering op to indemnify the loss of the crops of complainant, if any. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Ops no.2 and 3 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that ops no.2 and 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 ops no.2 and 3 as present crop insurance is done under the group insurance scheme as per terms and conditions of PMFBY. The answering ops had never received the premium for the insurance of crop in the land of complainant situated in village Ratta Khera and same was not insured with the answering ops. The banker of complainant has uploaded the name of village as Alikan in place of Ratta 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 the closure of the portal no correction can be made. It is further submitted that answering ops cannot be held responsible for the wrong committed by op no.1, therefore, op no.1 bank is liable to pay for the loss, if any to the complainant as per minutes of meeting of State Level Grievance Committee and as per clause 17.2 of the revised operational guidelines of PMFBY. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua ops no.2 and 3 made.
5. Op no.4 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or report of survey of loss of crop is to be prepared by op no.4 and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of op no.4 in this regard. The yield basis claims are settled by insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by op no.4 within specific time period and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.4 made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7.
7. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Prahlad Singh, Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/1 and documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/3. Ops no.2 and 3 have tendered affidavit of Ms. Puja Tapwal, Incharge Legal Hub as Ex. RW2/3/A, relevant clause of operational guidelines and minutes of meeting as Ex.RW2/3/1 and Ex. RW2/3/2. Op no.4 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex. RW4/A and documents Ex. RW4/1 and Ex.RW4/2.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
9. The complainant is claiming insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 sown in his agricultural land situated in village Ratta Khera District Sirsa. From the copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C3, it is proved that complainant is having his agricultural land in village Ratta Khera, District Sirsa. However, according to ops no.2 and 3, they did not receive the premium for insurance of crop in the land of complainant situated in village Ratta Khera and the banker of complainant i.e. op no.1 has uploaded the name of village as Alikan in place of Ratta Khera on the National Crop Insurance Portal wrongly. So, there is mistake on the part of op no.1 while uploading the data of complainant on the portal. The op no.4 which is liable to conduct survey of the loss of crops of farmer has placed on file report of Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa as Ex. RW4/1 according to which the average yield of cotton crop of village Ratta Khera in Kharif, 2018 was 435.41 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Dabwali was 576.36 Kgs. per hectare. Since the average yield of village Ratta Khera was less than threshold yield of block, so as per the operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss of cotton crop in village Ratta Khera in Kharif, 2018 and as such there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2018. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 was Rs.72000/- as is evident from Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018 Ex.RW4/2. So as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.26,700/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in his 30 kanals of land. The op no.1 bank only is liable to pay the said claim to the complainant as it wrongly uploaded the details of complainant on portal and as such ops no.2 and 3 insurance companies are not liable to pay any claim amount to the complainant. In this regard Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula in the latest judgment in case titled as The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank now merged with Union Bank of India Versus Rupinder Singh and others Appeal No. 803 of 2022 decided on 11.01.2023 has held that “As per provision 17.2 of operational guidelines of PMFBY for difference of claim due to wrong information, if any, concerned bank/ intermediaries were responsible”. The Clause 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY stipulates that 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 (if any). The appeal filed by the bank in the above said case was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against op no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 bank to pay the claim amount of Rs.26,700/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.26,700/- from op no.1 bank alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op no.1 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua ops no.2 to 4 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President,
Dated: 07.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
