BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.119 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 28.06.2021.
Date of Decision : 28.07.2023.
Kuldeep Singh son of Sh. Gurbachan Singh, resident of village Mangeana, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Union Bank, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.
2. Oriental Insurance Company, Opposite Janta Bhawan, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa. Phone No. 01666-221391/ 9896065019 (M).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Surjeet Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint 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 complainant is having agricultural land in village Mangeana, Tehsil Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa and complainant sown cotton crop in three acres of land in Kharif, 2018. That as per insurance scheme, the op no.1 bank deducted premium amount of Rs.1675.30 from his account No. 637105030000225 on 27.07.2018 and got insured his crop with op no.2. It is further averred that complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of his damaged crop of above said season of 2018 but none of the ops have paid any compensation to him whereas other farmers of his village have already received insurance claim amount at the rate of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre. That complainant also moved a complaint before C.M. Window which was forwarded to the Agriculture Department, Dabwali in which the official of op no.2 got recorded his statement that op no.1 bank has shown the land of the complainant in village Alika and said mistake occurred at the time of insurance of his crop and due to the said reason the complainant has not received claim amount. It is further averred that complainant has approached the ops several times and requested to pay the compensation for the loss of his crop of kharif, 2018 but to no effect and ops have caused unnecessary harassment to him. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant is having his loan account with op no.1. On the request of complainant, the answering op got his crops sown in 1.1634 hectare land insured with op no.2. Accordingly op no.1 debited a sum of Rs.1675.29 to the loan account of complainant and transferred the same to op no.2. It is further submitted that answering op has uploaded the complete data i.e. name of crop, area, name of village in which the land is situated on the portal of the op no.2 and op no.1 uploaded the details whatever complainant told to answering op. It is liability of insurance company to indemnify the loss of the crops of complainant, if any. Remaining contents of complainant are also denied 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 complainant has not explained about the loss of crops in village Mangeana. Op no.1 uploaded the name of village Alika in place of Mangeana on the National Crop Insurance Portal and did not make any effort to rectify the mistake and to correct the name of village in Portal before the closure of the portal. After the closure of the portal no correction can be made and according to clause 17.2 of the revised operational guidelines of PMFBY, answering op is not liable to pay any claim for loss of crop or any compensation to the complainant and op no.1 bank is liable to pay the loss, if any to the complainant. 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.C8.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Parhlad Singh Manager as Ex.R1 and detail of farmers uploaded on the portal as Ex.R2.
7. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Virender Kumar, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R3, clauses of the operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R4 to Ex.R9 and minutes of the meeting as Ex.R10.
8. During the course of arguments, complainant has also placed on file report regarding threshold yield of block Dabwali.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
10. From the document Ex.R2 i.e. detail of farmer complainant placed on file by op no.1 bank itself as Ex.R2, it is proved on record that op no.1 bank shown the area of complainant in village Alika on the National Insurance Crop Portal whereas it is proved on record that complainant is having his agricultural land in village Mangeana, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. The complainant in order to prove loss to his insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 has placed on file report of the Agriculture department, Sirsa as Ex.C5 in which it is reported that the average yield of cotton crop of village Mangeana in Kharif, 2018 was 377.06 Kgs. per hectare and according to letter/ report of Agriculture Department, Sirsa dated 10.07.2023 placed on file by complainant during the course of arguments, the threshold yield of cotton crop of block Dabwali of Kharif, 2018 was 576.36 Kgs. per hectare. So, it is proved on record that there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2018. The complainant has alleged that he sown cotton crop in his three acres of land whereas as per document Ex.R2, the cotton crop in his 1.1634 hectare of land was insured and as such complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount for the loss of his cotton crop in his 1.1634 hectare of land. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 was Rs.72,000/-. So as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to claim amount of Rs.28,965/- for the loss of his cotton crop in Kharif, 2018. As per clause 17.2 of revised operational guidelines of PMFBY (mentioned in Ex.R4) and minutes of the meeting dated 14.01.2021 Ex.R10 only op no.1 bank is liable to pay the said claim amount to the complainant. In this regard, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula in a similar 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.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 bank to pay the above said claim amount of Rs.28,965/- 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.28,965/- from op no.1 bank alongwith interest @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 op no.2 insurance company stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President
Dt. 28.07.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
