BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 649 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 15.11.2019.
Date of Decision : 29.09.2023.
Darshana, aged about 53 years wife of Shri Bhag Singh, resident of Vill. Ali Mohammad, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Union Bank of India, Branch at Govt. National College, Sirsa through its Manager.
2. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sirsa.
3. District Agriculture Officer, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………….MEMBER
Argued by: Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant that she is an agriculturist and is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 3.5 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Ali Mohammad, District Sirsa and whole of her family affairs depends on the income of seasonal crop. The complainant is having her Kisan Credit card account number 535205030040525 with op no.1 bank and has availed loan facility from op no.1 bank. It is further averred that op no.1 bank deducted the amount of premium for insurance of her crop of Kharif, 2018 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna. The complainant has also supplied copy of Khasra Girdawari of Kharif, 2018 to the ops regarding sowing of cotton crop in her land and the premium amount was transferred to the op no.2 insurance company. That whole of cotton crop of kharif, 2018 sown by complainant was destroyed/ damage due to attack of rainy flood/ natural calamity and as such complainant has suffered heavy financial loss as she has spent Rs. twenty to twenty five thousands per acre for sowing of crop. The complainant thereafter approached to all of the ops and also requested for payment of claim amount to the ops and also requested op no.3 for survey and assessment of loss of crop but they all failed to redress the grievance of complainant. It is further averred that ops have out rightly repudiated the claim of complainant simply reporting that due to wrong mentioning of the village as Kanwarpura instead of Ali Mohammad, her claim has been repudiated and as such all the ops have caused deficiency in service as well as unnecessary harassment to the complainant. That other villagers whose crops were damaged have already been paid compensation by ops no.1 and 2 and as such complainant is also legally entitled to the compensation for the damage of her crop at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that amount of premium was remitted to op no.2 insurance company and as per norms of the policy, the insurance company after insurance of the crop of a farmer had to verify the physical data by visiting the spot. The answering op bank had only to deduct the amount of insurance premium and to remit the same to the insurance company. The insurance claim of complainant was/is to be settled by insurance company and not by answering op. It is further submitted that answering op had sent an email to the Lead Bank Manager for correction of village name of land of complainant and others and the Lead Bank Manager had uploaded the correct name of village of land of complainant and other such farmers on the portal. So, now the claim is to be settled by insurance company and not by answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding non maintainability of complaint on the ground of privity of contract, cause of action and estoppal etc. It is submitted that bank has uploaded the name of village as Kanwarpura instead of village Ali Mohammad and if this is a mistake, same has never been corrected by the bank or farmer within the stipulated period on the portal. It is further submitted that there was no natural calamity or loss to the crop of kharif, 2018 of village Kanwarpura upoloaded by the banker of complainant, hence complaint is liable to be dismissed against answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. Op no.3 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or survey of loss of crop is to be prepared by answering op which has been prepared by answering op and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered her affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and mark A and mark B.
7. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Puja Incharge Legal Hub as Ex.R1 and copy of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R2 and minutes of the meeting Ex.R3. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Natasha, Branch Manager as Ex.R4. OP no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R5, Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018 Ex.R6 and village wise tabulation sheet Ex.R7.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.
9. There is no dispute of the fact that on 31.07.2018 premium amount of Rs.2174/- was deducted from the account of complainant by op no.1 bank for insuring her crop of kharif, 2018 as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna. The op no.1 bank in this regard has asserted that said premium amount deducted from the account of complainant was duly paid to op no.2 insurance company for insurance of crop of kharif, 2018 of complainant. However, it is proved on record from the letter of the op no.1 bank itself written to op no.2 on 11.07.2019 that op no.1 bank wrongly entered the village name of land of complainant as Kanwarpura in place of Ali Mohammad on the insurance portal. The complainant has alleged that she had sown cotton crop in her 3.5 acres of land situated in village Ali Mohammad which was destroyed and in order to prove loss of cotton crop in village Ali Mohammad in Kharif, 2018 complainant has also placed on file copy of letter dated 16.09.2022 of the Deputy Director, Agriculture department, Sirsa in which it was reported that the average yield of cotton crop of village Ali Mohammad in Kharif, 2018 was 294.10 Kgs. per hectare and the threshold yield of Nathusari Chopta block was 561.06 Kgs. per hectare. However, op no.3 who is liable to conduct survey of the loss of crops has placed on file another document i.e. village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during Kharif, 2018 as Ex.R7 in which it is reported that average yield of village Ali Mohammad was 294.10 Kgs. per hectare and average yield of block i.e. Nathusari Chopta was 462.26 kgs. per hectare and on the basis of said document Ex.R7 claims of farmers were settled and paid. Since the average yield of village Ali Mohammad was less than of block Nathusari Chopta, therefore, as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss of cotton crop of village Ali Mohammad in Kharif, 2018 and as such there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in kharif, 2018 and complainant is to be paid claim amount on the basis of document Ex.R7 as farmers of different villages have also been compensation on the basis of document Ex.R7. As per Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.3.2018 Ex.R6, the sum insured amount of cotton crop in Sirsa district in 2018 was Rs.72000/- per hectare and as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.36,930/- for the loss of her cotton crop in kharif, 2018 in her 3.5 acres of land which is equal to 1.41 hectare. Since, it is proved on record that op no.1 bank wrongly uploaded the name of land of village of complainant as Kanwarpura instead of Ali Mohammad, therefore, as per clause 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the op no.1 bank is only liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.36,930/- to the complainant. The contention of op no.1 bank that they have already sent email for correction of name of village of complainant has no substance because the op no.1 bank has not placed on file any copy of said email to prove the fact that email was timely sent and the letter sent by op no.1 bank to op no.2 (Ex.C7) is of dated and therefore, it is proved on record that bank did not get corrected the above said mistake in time. In this regard 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 to them. So, op no.1 bank only is liable to pay above said amount of Rs.36,930/- to the complainant and no liability of remaining ops i.e. ops no.2 and 3 towards the complainant is made out.
10. In view of our above discussion, we partly allow this complaint qua opposite party no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 bank to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.36,930/- to the complainant for the loss of her cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in village Ali Mohammad 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 above said amount of Rs.36,930/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment from op no.1 bank. 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 and 3 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
Dt. 29.09.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
