BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 79 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 06.02.2020.
Date of Decision : 30.05.2024.
Om Parkash aged about 34 years son of Shri Hukam Chand, resident of village Modiakhera, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Union Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, Government National College, Hisar Road, Opposite Bus Stand, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Janta Bhawan Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Manager.
...…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
Present: Sh. Ravinder Kamboj, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
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 he is an agriculturist and is having about 11 kanals 17½ marlas of land situated at village Modiakhera, Tehsil and District Sirsa comprised in Khewat Nos. 372, 392 and 41 as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018. The complainant has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on his above said agriculture land through account number 535205030040438. That as per Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 a sum of Rs.822/- was deducted by op no.1 from the above account of complainant on 31.07.2018 and op no.1 had got insured the crop with op no.2. It is further averred that kharif crop of 2018 of in his village including crop of complainant was destroyed on account of natural calamities and complainant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.10,856/- per acre. That other farmers have already received compensation within short period but op no.2 flatly refused to pay any insurance claim amount to the complainant. It is further averred that complainant immediately contacted at the office of op no.1 where he was surprisingly told by officials of op no.1 that Kharif 2018 cotton crop of complainant had not been insured despite deduction of premium on account of wrong mentioning of name of his village where his land is situated and it appears that both the ops in collusion with each other have deliberately done so for causing loss to the complainant with a malafide intention. That this amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of ops and complainant is legally entitled to get claim of damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 from the ops. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that at the time of advancement of loan the complainant has declared his crops to be sown by him i.e. in Kharif cotton crop w.e.f. June to October in 1.37 acres and wheat in Rabi from November to April in 1.37 acres and requested the answering op to get his declared crops insured with the op no.2. Accordingly answering op debited a sum of Rs.822/- on account of insurance premium from the loan account of complainant and transferred the same on 31.07.2018 to op no.2 and got insured the crops of complainant. It is further submitted that answering op has not charged any penny from complainant in this regard and hence there has been no liability of answering op to indemnify the loss of complainant, if any. The op no.2 has received the insurance premium and has not refunded the same till today, hence it is insurance company who has to indemnify the loss of complainant, if any. It is further submitted that answering op after noticing the error i.e. location of the land which was wrongly uploaded, written many a times to op no.2 for the correction/ rectification. But neither the op no.2 has responded to the correspondence made by answering op nor has refunded the amount of premium. It is made clear that as per insurance policy, the insurance company shall verify the data of insured farmers as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of 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. The insurance company has not bothered to correct the name of village wrongly uploaded in its record, hence, it is the insurance company who is liable to indemnify the loss of the 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. Op no.2 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that portal data uploaded by the bank shown the land of complainant in village Burjbhangu and this information came into notice and knowledge of answering op after receipt of summons when the particulars were tallied with the portal data record on which entire detail was uploaded by the bank and insurance coverage is always accordingly. There is no insurance of crop of complainant of village Modiakhera. The bank has uploaded the name of village as Burjbhangu instead of village Modiakhera and this mistake 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 cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 of village Burjbhangu uploaded by the banker of complainant which got the insurance coverage by giving and uploading the particulars of village Burjbhangu on NCIP portal, which is the basic record or can be said to be the record for foundation of the contract and name of the stake holder particularly bank can back track from the data uploaded by them on the portal and once this data is approved and policy is issued by answering op, insurance company can be held liable only for payment of damage, if any only in the case when on the basis of data/ record, yield record for such crop and village is correctly uploaded on the portal within stipulated period and so supplied to the insurance company. The record uploaded by banker of complainant is still on the portal, hence insurance company is not liable. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 prayed for.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 bank has tendered affidavit of Ms. Natasha Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex. RW1/1 and Ex. RW1/2. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Puja Tapwal Incharge as Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex. R2/1 and Ex.R2/2.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. The claim of complainant for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 has been denied by op no.2 on the ground that op no.1 bank uploaded wrong village name of the land of complainant on the portal as op no.1 bank uploaded village name as Burj Bhangu instead of Modiakhera. Admittedly the complainant is having his land in village Modia Khera which is also evident from copy of jamabandi Ex.C4 and there is also admission on the part of op no.1 bank that village name of land of complainant was wrongly mentioned as Burj Bhangu instead of Modia khera on the portal. The complainant in order to prove loss to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 has placed on file letter/ report of Deputy Director Agriculure department, Sirsa as Ex.C6 according to which the average yield of cotton crop of village Modiakhera in Kharif, 2018 was 335.82 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta was 561.06 Kgs. per hectare. Since as per this report Ex.C6, the average yield of village Modiakhera remained less than threshold yield, therefore, as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss of cotton crop in village Modiakhera in Kharif, 2018 and as such there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 was Rs.72,000/- per hectare. So as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.16,000/- for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in his 1.37 acres of land. Since, it is proved on record that op no.1 bank wrongly uploaded the name of land of village of complainant as Burj Bhangu instead of Modia Khera, 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.16,000/- to the complainant. The contention of op no.1 bank that they have already written to op no.2 for correction of name of village of land of complainant has no substance because the op no.1 bank has not placed on file any copy of said letter/ email to prove the said fact. 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.16,000/- to the complainant and no liability of op no.2 towards the complainant is made out.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint qua opposite party no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 bank to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.16,000/- 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 above said amount of Rs.16,000/- 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 op no.2 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. 30.05.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
