BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 78 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 06.02.2020.
Date of Decision : 29.07.2024.
Sharwan Kumar aged about 41 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. Amit Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, 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 in case any loss is caused to the complainant, then the insurance company op no.2 is only liable to make the payment of any loss caused to the complainant. The answering op got insured the crops which have been intimated by the complainant at the time of taking loan in the loan application. Due to inadvertent mistake, the name of the village was wrongly uploaded. The answering op also made request to the insurance company to rectify the clerical mistake if any caused at the time of uploading the detail of insured farmers as per notification. The insurance companies should facilitate the banks branches intermediaries/ agents to upload the detail of insurance farmers and beneficiaries with all requisite details on crop insurance portal well in time. The answering op is not liable to pay the compensation on account of alleged loss to the complainant. 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 as per record of answering op, the area of village Lehengewala belonging to the present complainant was uploaded on the portal and a sum of Rs.822/- was remitted to the answering op as insurance premium for the crop of village Lehengewala and not of village Modiakhera. It is further submitted that crop in question belonging to the complainant in respect of village Modiakhera was not got insured with the answering op rather village Lehengewala was uploaded on the portal. In this regard, a State Level Grievance Committee meeting was held on 14.01.2021 to discuss the pending cases of the farmers under the PMFBY scheme. In this meeting, the officers of State Govt., Banking Sector and Insurance Company were present to discuss the issue. In the said meeting, it was settled that where village name found to be mismatched, the bank shall pay the claim to the farmers as per guidelines of PMFBY as per clause No. XXIV(4) (e) of operational guidelines of Kharif, 2016 to Kharif 2018 and clause no. 17.2 for the year Rabi 2019 and Rabi 2019-2020 of revised operational guidelines of PMFBY. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
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 Sh. Din Dayal, Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
7. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities and the evidence of op no.2 was closed by order.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
9. 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 Lehengewala 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 on the portal. As such reason of denial of claim of complainant by op no.2 is due to difference of village name of the land of complainant as is also evident from Ex.C1. The complainant in order to prove loss to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in his village Modiakhera has placed on file letter/ report of Deputy Director Agriculure department, Sirsa as Ex.C5 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.C5, 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 Lehengewala instead of Modia Khera on the portal, therefore, as per clause 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 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.
10. 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. 29.07.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
