Haryana

Karnal

CC/326/2022

Rohit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Kumar

19 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.326 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt. 09.06.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 19.12.2024

 

1. Rohit Kumar son of Shri Ashok Kumar.
2. Gagan Deep Sharma son of Shri Ashok Kumar

Both resident of village Patanpuri, P.O. Nigdhu, Sub Tehsil Nigdhu, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.

                                                                        …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

1. State Bank of India, Branch Nigdhu, Karnal through its Branch Manager.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No.157, 2^nd floor, Sector-9, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before      Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

                Ms.Neeru Agarwal….Member  

        Ms.Sarvjeet Kaur…..…..Member

 

Argued by: Shri Lalit Kansal, counsel for the complainant.

                   OP no.1 proceeded exparte.

                    Shri Rohit Gupta, counsel for the OP No.2.

 Shri Surender Kumar, Project Officer on behalf of      

 OP no.3.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainants are owner in possession of land measuring 7 acres situated at village Patanpuri, P.O. Nigdhu, Sub Tehsil Nigdhu, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal as per Jamabandi for the year 2016-2017. The complainants are cultivating the said land from past many years. From this income the complainants are earning their livelihood. The complainants have obtained KCC Limit from the OP no.1 and land of the complainants mortgaged with the OP no.1. As per Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, an amount of Rs.1931/- on 31.07.2017 and Rs.1225/- on 30.12.2017 debited by the OP no.1 from the account of the complainants. The KCC account of the complainants is properly being maintained and paying premium of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna regularly. In the paddy season 2017, complainants obtained the paddy crop i.e. less than average and OP no.2 paid the complainants for less average crops of Rs.8498/- per acre to all the villagers of village Patanpuri, but due to the negligence of OP no.1 the details of the complainants were not downloaded (regarding the less average crop) and similarly for Rabi season 2017-2018 the complainants obtained the paddy crop i.e. less than average and OP no.2 paid the less average crops of Rs.7778/- per acre to all the villagers of village Patanpuri but due to negligence of OP no.1, the details of the complainants did not downloaded regarding the less average crop. Thereafter, complainants approached the OP no.1 and requested to pay the loss suffered by them. Then OP no.1 told to the complainants to approach the OP no.2 regarding his loss and in this regard the complainants moved an application before C.M. Window, Karnal, Finance Minister, P.M.O. Agriculture Minister, Agriculture Farmer Welfare, and send many emails but till date the OPs no.1 and 2 did not pay any claim to the complainants. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.1,20,000/- each to the complainants alongwith upto date interest, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- each to the complainants on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; limitation; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits it is pleaded that since the complainant has obtained KCC loan on the security of the land owned by him and as obligatory upon the OP and in compliance of the scheme launched by the Government of India in the name and style of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, the required amount of Rs.1931/- was debited on 31.07.2017 and the same was credited to the account of OP no.2. In this way OP has successfully performed the part of agreement or the act incumbent upon the OP no.1 by crediting the same to the account of OP no.2, hence OP discharged his responsibility as warranted from him as per the scheme in question and shifts to the OP no.2 who did not act as per the norms of the scheme. It is further pleaded that the complaint pertains to the redressal of the action for Rabi season 2017-2018, as such the complaint has been filed after the expiration of the period of limitation of two years. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; limitation; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits it is pleaded that OP after scrutinizing the documents submitted by the complainant has observed that, though for khariff 2017 and Rabi 2017-2018, the booking was done, but there were no details of farmer provided in the PMGBY Government portal which is requires to be uploaded by the Bank. However, in the instant case, the farmer details i.e. details of complainant have not been provided by the bank in the given cut-off data and the bank will be liable to pay for such claims. According to claim status of Khariff 2017 and Rabi 2017-18, the farmer was not eligible for any claim for localized claim. Since the bank has not provided requisite details hence the liability of any claim arising out of them lies with the bank.  It is further pleaded that the premium was received on 11.08.2017 for JH-17 and 30.12.2017 for Rabi-18. The portal for uploading the farmer details was open till 31^st March, 2018, however the bank never uploaded any details on the portal nor did the bank share any details with the OP for any of the above mentioned seasons. In absence of any farmer details the OP was in no position to issue the policy. There was never any contract between the complainant and the OP. The deficiency is on the part of the concerned bank. It is further pleaded that in absence of farmer details, on 17.08.2018, the bank had refunded the premium amount for both the season. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 in his reply stated that during Kharif season 2017, average yield claim Rs.21248.06/- per hectare and during season Rabi 2017-2018 average yield claim Rs.19447.01 per hect. was arise in village Patanpuri. OP no.1 committed mistake in the filling of the GOI portal which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As per the operational guidelines of Pradan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna clause no.XVII (2) at that time if substantial misreporting by bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concern bank only shall be liable for such misreporting.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Gagandeep Sharma Ex.CW2/A, copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C1, copy of bank statement of Gagandeep Ex.C2, copy of bank statement Rohit Kumar Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, copies of action taken reports dated 15.05.2019, 18.07.2019, 11.02.2019, 22.08.2019 Ex.C5 to Ex.C8, copy of reply of Agriculture department dated 28.08.2019 Ex.C9, copy of reply of Bank dated 08.03.2021 Ex.C10, postal receipts Ex.C11 to Ex.C14, copy of application to Finance Minister dated 25.03.2021 Ex.C15, copy of reply by Finance Department to SBI dated 08.07.2021 Ex.C16, copies of emails Ex.C17 to Ex.C22, copy of CM window application dated 29.03.2022 Ex.C23 and closed the evidence on 27.03.2023 by suffering separate statement

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikas Kumar Ex.DW1/A and closed the evidence on 12.12.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Saurav Khullar, Legal Claims-Deputy Manager Ex.OP2/A, complete details Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on 06.02.2024 by suffering separate statement.

9.             OP no.3 has tendered into evidence detail of crop in District Karnal for Khariff-2017 Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence on 12.12.2023 by suffering separate statement.

10.           It is pertinent to mention here that none has put into appearance on behalf of OP No.1. The position remained the same on 29.08.2024, 21.10.2024 and 25.11.2024. Hence, OP no.1 was proceeded against exparte.

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

12.           Learned counsel for complainants, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainants obtained a KCC limit from the OP no.1. As per Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 has deducted the premium amount from the account of the complainants. In the year 2017-2018, the OPs have paid Rs.8500/- and Rs.7778/- per acre respectively to the other villagers on account of less average in crops in the said seasons. OP no.1 bank had not uploaded the detail of the complainants on GOI portal and due to negligence on the bank and other OPs, complainants were deprived from compensation paid to other villagers by the insurance company. Complainants moved various applications to the higher authorities but no action has been taken by the said authorities and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

13.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that details of complainants have not been provided by the Bank, since the bank has not provided requisite details of complainants hence the liability of any claim arising out of them lies with the bank.  In absence of farmer details, on 17.08.2018, OP had remitted the premium amount for both the season to the Bank and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.2.

14.           Shri Surender Kumar Project Officer has submitted that that during Kharif season 2017, average yield claim Rs.21248.06/- per hectare and during season Rabi 2017-2018 average yield claim Rs.19447.01 per hect. was arisen in village Patanpuri. OP no.1 committed mistake in the filling of the GOI portal which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

15.           Complainants have alleged that due to less average in the Kharif and Rabi crop 2017-2018, complainants were entitled for Rs.8500/- and Rs.7778/- per acre and other villagers had received the said amount on account of less average. The onus to prove their version was relied upon the complainants but they have miserably failed to prove their version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainants have not placed on file any documentary evidence to ascertain that they are entitled for the compensation on account of less average in the crops under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. There is nothing on the file that other villagers have received the compensation on account of less average in the crops. Further, there is also nothing on the file that in the year 2017-2018, the crop of the other villagers and complainants were damaged due to any natural disaster.

16.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:19.12.2024                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Neeru Agarwal)              (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                        Member                              Member