Haryana

Karnal

CC/18/2021

Sandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Agriculture Department - Opp.Party(s)

11 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 18 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.11.01.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:11.08.2023

 

Sandeep Singh son of Balwan Singh, resident of village Begampur, Karnal, Haryana. Aadhar no.8352 4471 6740..

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Agriculture Department, Gharaunda, Karnal, Haryana.

 

2. Punjab National Bank, Dadlana, Panipat, Haryana.

 

3.     SBI General insurance Company Ltd. 1^st floor, B.D. International  SCO no.388-389,  Karan Commercial Complex, near Guru Harikishan Public School, Old Char Chaman, Karnal.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

    Shri Surender Kumar, Project Officer on behalf

                    of OP no.1.

                    Shri Hanumant Singh, counsel for the OP no.2.

                    Shri Naveen Kheterpal, counsel for the OP no.3.

                   

                    (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary, member)

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’) on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and having 3 acres of land in village Begampur, District Karnal. In the year 2019, the crop of the complainant was insured by the OP no.2/bank through OP no.3 under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Crop of te complainant has been damaged. At the time of applying the said insurance by the complainant, OPs have also given the loss of crop about 35% and has to give the compensation of the abovesaid Rs.26,200/- per acre and the OP bank has also given message on the mobile no.9813586780 of the complainant on 14.01.2020. As OPs have not given a single amount in favour of the complainant. Complainant visited the office of OPs for knowing the status of the amount, the official of the OPs told the complainant that remaining amount is pending due to wrong entry of land in the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna but complainant also corrected the wrong entry and also has taken the concerning letter from PNB issued on 03.11.2020 but till today no amount for the loss of crop has been given to the complainant. It is further averred that after sanctioning of aforesaid amount, OPs have not given the single amount till today in favour of said account number of the complainant. Prior to sanctioning the aforesaid insurance, the complainant has fulfilled all the conditions and also submitted the documents regarding the said crop insurance. Complainant visited the office of OPs several times and requested to give the said amount for loss of crop of the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

 2.            On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version stating therein that complainant informed to the Agriculture Department regarding his damaged crop and accordingly the official of the agriculture of the insurance company got surveyed the damaged crop. It has been clarified that 3 acres of land of the complainant has suffered damaged due to water logged in following manner:-

3 Acres: 35%

 It is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the bank. As per record, crop village has been filled by bank of Kutana instead of Begampur and by this deficiency in service, insurance company denied the claim of complainant. As per operational guidelines of Paradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna clause no.XVII (2) at that time if substantial misreporting by bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such misreporting.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that the OP no.1 bank has debited the premium of Rs.1219.20 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna on 30.12.2018 and the same was deposited with OP no.3, vide UTR no.PUNBH21015106995 dated 15.01.2021, amounting to Rs.62,216.82/-, which is total value of approximately 68 accounts/policies including the premium amount of Rs.1219.20p of complainant, has been deducted from the account of complainant and which has been accepted by the OP no.3 without any objection. It is further pleaded that number of disputes related to Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna scheme was pending throughout Haryana and in this regard, a meeting was held on 02.07.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri Ajit Bala Ji Joshi IAS, Director General Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Haryana and it was decided in minutes of meeting as under:-

i.      Cases where farmers record mismatch and premium paid by banks to insurance company on time, whereas insurance company not return premium to bank in time. Insurance company will pay the claim to farmers as per farmer record.

ii.     Cases where banks entered wrong crop and paid wrong premium amount bank is liable to pay the claim to farmers.

iii.     Cases where the banks deposit the premium after the cut-off of date and insurance company will accept the premium with interest as per clause.

iv.     Cases where the bank not entered the data on the portal, but the premium deposited to the insurance company in time and not return to the bank by the insurance company in time, then the insurance company have to pay the claim.

v.     It was decided that banks will send sms containing crop, area, premium amount, address, land record to farmers mobile number for their consent and validation. This shall be implemented from kharif-2019.

 

In this case, the bank has deposited the premium amount in time and also entered the detail on the portal, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone against the OP no.2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 in its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant never shared policy and application number with insurance company. OPs also checked the complainant details through the account no.7278008800001456 which has mentioned in complaint, but no such information regarding the particulars of the complainant’s claim available with the OP. It is further pleaded that crop insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna which operates area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as in insurance unit. For all major crops, insurance unit is Gram Panchayat and for minor crops, insurance unit is Taluk. It is further pleaded that Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare is fixed for every insurance unit. Actual yield (AY) kilogram/hectare of an insurance unit is calculated by the government taking samples from respective insurance unit at the time of harvesting of the crop through crop cutting experiments (CCEs) which are conducted by State Government. All the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claims is furnished by the government and accordingly the insurance company only calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Provision of operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna vide clause XI: Assessment of loss/shortfall in yield, sub clause 10: Assessment of Claims (Wide Spread Calamities)

“If ‘Actual Yield’ (AY) per hectare of insured crop for the insurance unit (calculated on basis of requisite number of CCEs) in insured season, falls short of specified “Threshold Yield” (TY), all insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in yield of similar magnitude. PMFBY seeks to provide coverage against such contingency.

‘Claim’ shall be calculated as per the following formula:

(Threshold Yield- Actual Yield)

Threshold yield                  X Sum insured.

 

It is further pleaded that in the present case, in the absence of application number, OP is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bank passbook Ex.C1, copy of statement of account Ex.C2, copy of survey report Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 03.11.2020 Ex.C4, copy of aadhar card Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 11.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surender Kumar Project Officer Ex.OP1/A, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yoja Ex.OP1, copy of survey report Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 02.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Pawan Mishra, Branch Manager Ex.OPW1/A, copy of ledger enquiry Ex.OP2/1, copy of maintain payment order Ex.OP2/2, copy of transaction maintenance-part transaction list Ex.OP2/3, copy of minutes of meeting Ex.OP2/4, copy of general power of attorney Ex.OP2/5 and closed the evidence on 02.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             Learned counsel for the OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Arvind Singh Naruka Ex.RW1/A, copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R1, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yoja Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 06.06.2023 by suffering separate statement.

10.           We have heard the complainant and representative of OP no.1 and learned counsel of the OPs no.2 and 3 and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

11.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complainant, has vehemently argued that complainant has obtained the insurance policy under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from OP no.3 through OP no.2. The premium of the insurance was deducted from the account of complainant and same was remitted in the account of insurance company. In the season of Rabi, 2019 the crop of the complainant has been damaged due to heavy rain and complainant moved an application to Agriculture Department for assessing the loss and accordingly the land of complainant was got inspected by the official of the Agriculture Department on 03.04.2020. As per survey report, the loss of the  crop of complainant was assessed to the extent of 35% in three acres of land. Complainant submitted the application for the insurance claim with the OPs, but they denied the claim of the complainant on the ground the name of the complainant was not uploaded on the Government portal and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

12.           Per-contra, OP no.3 submitted that the crop of the complainant was damaged due to water logging. OP no.1 inspected the fields of complainant on 03.04.2020 and prepared the report while assessed the damaged to the extent of 35% in three acres of land of the complainant.

 13.          Learned counsel of OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that after deduction of premium amount, under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.2 had remitted premium in the account of insurance company, so there is no fault on the part of the bank/OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP no.1.

14.           Learned counsel for OP no.3 argued that that all the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claim is furnished by the government and accordingly the insurance company only calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. He further argued that complainant never shared the policy and application number and in the absence of application number, OP is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

15.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

16.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land in village Begampur and insured his crop with OP no.3 through OP no.2 (bank). It is also admitted that OP no.2 had deducted premium amount for insurance of crop on behalf of OP no.3 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. It is also an admitted fact that the insurance premium was duly remitted in the account of OP no.3 by the OP No.2.

 17.          Due to damage of crop, complainant moved an application to Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal for inspection of the damaged crop. The team of Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal, has inspected the crop of complainant and submitted his report Ex.C3/OP1/2, in which it has been clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant in village Begampur and observed that damaged crop to the extent of 35% in three acres of land.  Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown rabi crop in village Begampur and same was damaged to the extent of 35% in three acres of land but the complainant name was not found in the insurance portal. The insurance company denied to pay any compensation/claim to complainant while saying that complainant never shared the policy number and application number with the OP no.3. OP no.1 has also placed on record copy of inspection report Ex.C3/OP1/2, conducted by agricultural department and representative of insurance company which reveals that on 03.04.2020 agriculture department and representative of insurance company inspected the field of complainant and found that his crop in three acres of land was damaged due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report Ex.C3/OP1/2, that crop of complainant in three acres of land in village Begampur was damaged and he has suffered loss, on account of damage of his crop. The OP no.3 has not paid claim amount to the complainant on the ground that the complainant never shared the policy and application number and in the absence of application number, OP no.3 is unable to trace any information regarding to the claim of complainant.

18.           Moreover, OP no.2 bank has also relied upon the minutes of the meeting to discuss the pending dispute of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) held on 02.07.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri Ajit Bala Ji Joshi, IAS Director General Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana and Minutes of the meeting to discuss the pending dispute of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) held on 11.09.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri D.K. Jain, Zonal Manager (PNB) and Convener SLBC Haryana, in the abovesaid meetings, it was resolved that cases where farmers record mismatch and premium paid by Banks to insurance company on time, whereas insurance company has not returned premium to bank in time, insurance company will pay the claim to farmers as per farmer record.

19.           In rebuttal, learned counsel for OP no.3 has relied upon   the minutes of 4^th Meeting of State Level Grievance Committee held on 14.1.2021, in which it has been resolved/ decided that in case of Village Name Mismatch, the concerned bank branch is liable to pay the claim of affected farmers. This observation has been given by the Committee on the basis of clause no.XXIV of PMFBY for the year Kharif 2016 to Kharif 2018 of Operational Guidelines and clause no.17.2 for the year Rabi 2018-19, Kharif-2019 and Rabi 2019-20 of Revised Operational Guidelines of PMFBY. The clause 17.2 of the Operational Guidelines of PMFBY is reproduced as under:-

“Consolidated declaration/ proposal formats to be submitted physically/ electronically by Nodal banks/ Branches shall contain details about Insurance Unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area insured of the farmers, number and category of farmers covered (small and marginal or other) and number of farmers under other categories (SC/ST/others)/ Women alongwith their bank account details etc. (bank/ their branches) as per the application for provided on the National Crop Insurance Portal. Banks are required to upload the insured farmers’ data mandatorily on the National Crop Insurance Portal. No other platform shall be used for uploading/ submission of farmers’ data. Those farmers whose data is uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal shall only be eligible for insurance coverage and accordingly the premium subsidy will also be released. 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.

                Further relevant portion of clause No.24 of the revised operational guidelines of PMFBY regarding Important Conditions/ Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks is as under:-

24.1 “Insurance Companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intermediary or directly. In case of any loss in transit due to negligence by these agencies or non remittance of premium by these agencies, the concerned bank/ intermediaries shall be liable for payment of claims.”

24.2  “In case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/ branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting.”

20.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.2 has submitted that abovesaid Minutes of the meeting has already been challenged by the concerned Banks before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the verdict of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court is still pending. Thus the said minutes of meetings are not applicable upon the OPs.

21.           In the present case, the insurance company OP no.3 which has retained the premium amount of complainant for insuring  crop of complainant of Rabi,2019 and has not returned the premium amount to bank in time is liable to pay insurance claim for the damage of crop to the complainant. Whereas complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of OP no.3 inspected the field of complainant and confirmed about the loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Rabi, 2019. Therefore, OP no.3 cannot go back and cannot avoid its liability when its representative has already found loss by surveying the crop of complainant. So, the insurance company i.e. OP no.3 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.

 22.          Learned counsel for OP no.3 has contended that complainant never shared policy and application number and in the absence of application number, insurance company is unable to trace any information regarding the claim of complainant. As per clause 24.2 of guidelines of PMFBY regarding collection of proposal and premium from farmers according to which in case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/ branch in case of compulsory farmer’s coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting. But as already discussed, there is nothing on file to prove the said plea of OP no.3 as OP no.3 has not led any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that there is any misreporting on behalf of bank for which OP no.2 bank can be held liable. Furthermore, there is nothing on file to prove that insurance company has verified the data of the complainant as provided by the bank or found any misreporting on the part of OP no.2 bank. Moreover, insurance company cannot take the shelter that complainant never shared the policy number and application number specifically when the Loss Assessor of the OP was very much present at the time of survey of the damaged crop. So, only insurance company i.e. OP no.3 liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, no liability of OPs no.1 & 2 is made out.

23.           Now, we observe the entitlement of the complainant regarding claim amount for the damage of his crop of Rabi, 2019. The complainant had sown crop in three acres of land and has suffered loss to the extent to the extent of 35% in the said land. Complainant in his complaint stated that OP no.2 bank has given the message on the mobile of the complainant regarding the loss of the crop about 35% and has to give the compensation of Rs.26,200/- per acre but complainant has not placed on file any message of bank to prove his version. It is well proved on record, complainant has suffered loss in his three acres of land to the extent of 35%. Thus, it would be justified, if the complainant be compensated with Rs.15,000/- per acre on account of damaged crop alongwith interest, compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses. However, no liability of OPs no.1 and 2 is made out.

24.           In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.3 i.e. insurance company to pay the amount of Rs.45000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of present complaint till its actual realization. We further direct the OP no.3 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complaint against OPs no.1 and 2 stands dismissed. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Dated:11.08.2023                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member