Haryana

Karnal

CC/608/2019

Surender - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Yashbir Singh

19 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 608 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.06.09.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:19.09.2022

 

Surender aged about 50 years son of Roshan Lal, resident of village Manjura Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     State Bank of India, Nissing, District Tehsil and District Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     Manager SBI General insurance Co. SCO no.388-389, 1^st floor, B.D. International, Karan Commercial Complex, Old Mugal Canal, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

3.     Deputy Director Agriculture near Ambedkar Chowk, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Yashbir Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri S.K. Malhotra, counsel for OP no.1.

                   Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for OP no.2.

   Shri Surinder Kumar, Project Officer on behalf of     

    OP no.3

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment 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  3.5 hectare land, situated in village Manjura, Tehsil and District Karnal. Complainant is the account holder of OP no.1, vide account no.35013300091. As per policy of the Government, the crop sown by the complainant in his eight acres land was insured by the complainant from OP no.2 through OP no.1 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. OP no.1 deducted an amount of Rs.4909.80 from the account of complainant on 31.07.2018.  In the season of Kharif, 2018 the crop of the complainant  more than 40% was damaged due to heavy rain and accumulation of water in the fields of the complainant. The said loss of the paddy crop of the complainant was assessed and verified by the Field Officer Department of Agriculture, Karnal and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/-.  Thereafter, complainant submitted the application for the insurance claim with the OP no.1 and OP no.1 referred the matter with the OP no.2, but OP no.2 denied the claim of the complainant by stating that the OP no.1 has not uploaded the name of the complainant on their portal. The mistake, if any, is on the part of the OP no.1 and as such the complainant cannot be penalized for the same. The complainant wrote several letters, reminders to the OPs for making payment of the amount of compensation of his eight acres but nothing has been done by the OPs. Non-loading the name of the complainant on the portal of the OPS and non-payment of the amount of compensation by the OPs is a clear cut 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 the compensation of damages crop of the land of the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of damage till its realization, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, torture, harassment and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability. On merits, it is pleaded that under the scheme of the Central Government, premium for crop insurance was paid out of the saving bank account of the complainant to OP no.2 and the same was remitted to OP no.2 on 31.07.2018., The premium was never returned by the OP no.2 to OP no.1. So the OP no.2 cannot escape its liability to settle the claim of the complainant on any technical grounds. The information could not be put on the portal for want of the Aadhar card which was not furnished by the complainant to the bank. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, It is pleaded that as per the PMFBY: Actual Yield (AY) kilogram/hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy (irrigated) in village:- Nissing (Rural)(34). Hence the complainant is not liable for any claim as per PMFBY guidelines. The policy booked for village Nissing (Rural)(34) not for village Manjura by the Bank during the crop portal booking. Whereas, the insurance company worked and booked the policies as per the available data on crop portal which were duly filled by authorized bank/intermediaries. It is further pleaded that OP neither issued to policy against village of Manujra nor received the premium of such village.  It is further pleaded that 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, as the Actual Yield kilogram/Hectare was more than Threshold Yield Kilogram/Hectare for crop:- paddy in village-Nissing (Rural)(34), which is respectively crop insured by and insurance unit of complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit under the policy.

Crop         District    Village         Farmer        Actual        Threshold    Claim

                                                  Type             Yield         Yield 

                                                            (AY)         (TY)

Paddy                Karnal      Nissing          -                3587.55    3332.70         0

(Dhan)                    (Rural)(34)                     

 

 

Based upon the calculation of the claim Rs.0, Hence the complainant are not liable for any compensation. It is further pleaded that complainant is not entitled for any compensation for damages to the crop as claimed amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 in its reply stated that complainant informed agriculture department regarding the said damages of crop and accordingly the officials of the agriculture of the insurance company got surveyed the damages crop, which it has been clarified that 2.5 acres of land of the complainant has suffered damages due to water lodged in the following manner 2.5 acre:20%.  It is further submitted there is clear cut deficient in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no.1 because farmer was insured on the GOI portal. As per the operational guidelines of PMFBY 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.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance receipt Ex.CW1, copy of survey report Ex.C2, copy of statement of account Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 17.01.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rishi Kumar Sharma, Branch Manager, Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 18.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Arvind Singh Naruka Authorized Signatory Ex.RW1/A, copy of insurance acknowledgement receipt Ex.R1, copy of Blockwise actual yield and threshold yield Ex.R2, copy of screen shot of Government portal Ex.R3, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 18.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

9.             OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Project Officer Ex.OP3/A, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.OP3/1, copy of letter dated 19.02.2021 Ex.OP3/2,  copy of survey report Ex.OP3/3 and closed the evidence on 13.04.2022 by suffering separate statement.

10.           We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

11.           Learned counsel of complainant, while reiterating the contents of complainant, has vehemently argued that complainant had obtained cash credit limit for agriculture/loan from the OP no.1 under scheme of cash credit agriculture and for the purpose of loan and got insured his crop from OP no.2 through OP no.1. He further argued that the complainant had sown paddy crop in eight acres of land in the month of June/July, 2018 but due to heavy rainfall, the crop was badly damaged and thereafter, complainant approached the OPs. The complainant requested the OPs several times to make the payment of compensation but they failed to pay the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

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

13.           Learned counsel for OP no.2 argued that Actual Yield (AY) kilogram/hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy in village Nissing (Rural)(34), hence the complainant is not liable for any compensation. 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.  As per Ex.R3 i.e. screen short of portal, the name of village is mentioned as Nissing (Rural) by OP no.1 instead of village Manjura and there is no loss in village Nissing, hence the claim of the complainant was rightly declined. There is no fault on the part of the insurance company and OP no.2 is not liable for the wrong act committed by OP no.1 i.e. bank and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

14.           OP no.3 submitted that the crop of the complainant was damaged due to water logging. OP no.3 had inspected the fields of complainant on 02.10.2018 and prepared the report in which they shown that the crop of complainant damaged to the extent of 20% in two and half acres of land.

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 Manjura and had obtained crop loan from OP no.1 (bank) and OP no.1 had deducted premium amounts for insurance of crop on behalf of OP no.2 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.2 by the OP No.1.

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.C2(Ex.OP3/3), in which it clearly mentioned that they inspected the land of complainant in village Manjura and observed that damaged crop in two and half acres of land to the extent of 20% in two and half acres of land. Hence, it is clearly proved on record that complainant had sown paddy/kharif crop in village Manjura and same was damaged to the extent of 20% in two and half acres of land but name of village has been wrongly mentioned by OP no.1 bank in the insurance portal as village Nissing instead of Manjura.

18.           Furthermore, so far as loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 is concerned, the complainant has specifically stated that in Kharif, 2018 season his crop were damaged due to water logging due to heavy rain and he moved an application to the agriculture department with regard to loss of crop. He has also stated that agriculture department and insurance company inspected/ surveyed his damaged crop but insurance company denied to pay any compensation/claim to him while saying that there is no loss in village Nissing. OP no.3 has also placed on record copy of inspection report Ex.C2(Ex.OP3/3), conducted by agricultural department and representative of insurance company, it reveals that on 02.10.2018 agriculture department and representative of insurance company had inspected the field of complainant and found that his paddy crop in area of two and half acres of land was damaged to the extent of 20% due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report Ex.C2(Ex.OP3/3), that paddy crop of complainant in area of two and half acres of land in village Manjura had damaged and he has suffered loss on account of damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The OP no.2 has not paid claim amount to the complainant on the ground that as the actual yield was more than threshold yield in village Nissing, therefore, complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The OP no.3 in its written version specifically has mentioned that on the GOI portal, the crop village of the farmer is a mismatch of the village name. In the portal ID, the area of crop insured of complainant has been shown in village Nissing instead of village Manjura and as such OP no.2 has taken stand that crop of complainant in village Manjura is not insured with it. No doubt, the OP no.1 bank has wrongly uploaded the name of the village of complainant, but according to clause 19 (xxii) of Haryana Government Agriculture & Welfare Department Notification dated 30.3.2018, the insurance company is to verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff 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. Hence, OP no.2 cannot take such plea that there is mismatch of the village name of the complainant as there is nothing on file to prove the fact that OP no.2 insurance company had verified the data of the complainant as provided by the OP no.1 independently and sought any correction and OP no.2 has retained the premium amount of complainant and has not refunded the same to the complainant due to mismatch of village name of complainant.

19.           Moreover, OP no.1 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.

20.           In rebuttal, learned counsel for OP no.2 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 dertails 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.”

21.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 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.

22.            In the present case, the insurance company OP no.2 which has retained the premium amount of complainant for insuring paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 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.2  have inspected the field of complainant and confirmed about the loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. Therefore, OP no.2 cannot go back and cannot avoid its liability when its representative has already found loss by surveying the crop of complainant. Furthermore, the crop of the complainant got surveyed individually not consolidated by the Agriculture Department, which has been proved from the survey report Ex.C2/Ex.OP3/3. Complainant has duly proved on record through cogent and convincing evidence that officer of agriculture department and representative of insurance company OP no.2 inspected the field of complainant and confirmed about the loss to the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. Therefore, OP no.2 cannot go back and cannot avoid its liability when its representative has already found loss to the crop of complainant.  So, the insurance company OP no.2 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, no liability of OPs no.1 and 3 is made out.

23.           Now, we observe the entitlement of the complainant regarding claim amount for the damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant had sown paddy crop in two and half hectare of land but as per survey report Ex.C2(Ex.OP3/3) complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 20% in two and half acres  of land. The said report has not been disputed by the insurance company. As per document issued by Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Haryana, as also produced in many another cases, the gross yield of paddy/kharif in the year 2018, in District Karnal is to the tune of Rs.45,000/- per acre. Complainant has suffered loss to the extent 0f 20% in two and half acres of land. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.22,500/-(9000x2.5=22,500). The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- for the damages of his crop, but as per the survey report, the loss comes out  to be of Rs.22,500/-only. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the abovesaid amount alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. However, no liability of OPs no.1 and 3 is made out.

24.           In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 i.e. insurance company to pay the amount of Rs.22,500/- 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.2 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complaint against OPs no.1 and 3 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:19.09.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member