Haryana

Karnal

CC/501/2019

Sandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syndicate Bank - Opp.Party(s)

25 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 501 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.06.08.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:25.05.2022

 

Sandeep Singh son of Shri Kala Singh, resident of village Achhanpur, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Syndicate Bank, Branch at Dachar, Tehsil Nissing, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

2.     SBI General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 388-389, 1^st floor, Karan Commercial Complex, Old Mugal Canal, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

3.     Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Haryana, Karnal, through its Deputy Director.

                                                                      …..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: Complainant in person.

                    Shri Rishipal Rana, counsel for the OP no.1.

Shri Gaurav Gupta, counsel for OP no.2.

Shri Surender 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 agriculturists and he is owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 2.5 acres situated in village Achhanpur, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal. Complainant is the account holder of the OP no.1, vide account no.82522200044662 and is also having Kisan Credit Card, vide account no.82528010011134. The complainant has also taken insurance policy under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from OP no.2 through the OP no.1. OP no.1 has deducted the premium of Rs.1392.04/- on 30.07.2018 from the account of complainant for the insurance of crop for the year kharif, 2018. In the season of Kharif 2018, the crop spread over the land measuring 4 acres of the complainant, got destroyed due to the natural disaster (heavy rain). The complainant immediately informed the agricultural department regarding the said damages of crop and accordingly the officials of the agricultural department as well as the officials of the insurance company got surveyed the damaged crop. Thereafter, officials of the SBI General Insurance company refused to give compensation to the complainant on the ground that as per record the land of the complainant is not insured with them. Then complainant approached the OP no.1 and enquired about the matter and it revealed that the officials of the OP no.1, while uploading the form of the complainant on the GOI portal, the place of the crop of the complainant mentioned as village Dachar instead of village Achhanpur. The OP no.1 committed mistake in filling of the GOI portal. 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 the compensation of damages crop of the land of the complainant i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 after deducting premium of Rs.1392.04/- from the account of the complainant on 30.07.2018 and same was credited to the account no.34089087089 of the OP no.2, vide IFS code no.SBIN0000539 through RTGS on 07.08.2018. Except this, OP had no role to play in the present case. So far as the damage to the crop of the complainant is concerned, the liability, if any, to pay the compensation for the same is that of the OP no.2 to which the premium was paid by the OP. It is further pleaded that crop of the complainant was insured with the OP no.2, so the OP no.2 is only responsible to assess the loss and pay the claim amount to the complainant, if any. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the complaint and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the policy booked for complainant Dachaur (62) not for village Achhanpur. It is further pleaded that as the actual yield (AY) kilogram/Hectare was more than Threshold Yield(TY) kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy (irrigated) in village Dachaur (62). Hence the complainant is not liable for any claim as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna.

Crop         District    Village         Farmer       Actual         Threshold    Claim

                                                 Type              Yield         Yield 

                                                            (AY)         (TY)

Paddy                Karnal      Dachaur        -              3403.0815 3332.07          0

(Dhan)                    (62)

                              

                                

It is further pleaded that crop insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna which operates on area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as an insurance unit. For all major crops, insurance unit is Gram Panchyat and for minor crops, insurance unit is Taluk. It is further pleaded that threshold yield kilogram/hectare is fixed for every insurance unit. Actual Yield 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. 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 Dachhar (62), which is respectively crop insured by and insurance unit of complainant. Based upon the calculation of the claim Rs.0, Hence the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs no.2. 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 crop of the complainant has been destroyed and the information regarding the damage of standing crop has been given to the OP no.3. Accordingly, the officials of the agriculture department and insurance company got surveyed the damaged crop. It is further submitted that OP no.1 committed mistake in filing of the GOI portal, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The detail of the farmer as per record crop village filled by the farmer mentioned on form-3 (survey) Achhanpur (40) and crop village on the GOI portal Dachaur (62) by this deficiency in service insurance company denied the claim. As per the operational guidelines of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna clause noXVii(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, copy of account operating instruction Ex.C1, copy of survey report Ex.C2, copy of account statement of complainant Ex.C3, copy of email Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 5.10.2020 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of J.C.Brahmania, Senior Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A, copies of statement of account of complainant Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 and closed the evidence on 24.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 and has tendered into evidence affidavit Arvind Singh Naruka Ex.RW1/A, copy of insurance acknowledgment receipt Ex.R1, copy of application status Ex.R2, copy of blockwise average yield and threshold yield Rabi 2019-2020 Ex.R3 and Ex.R4, copy of tabulation sheet regarding actual yield and threshold yield Ex.R5 to Ex.R7, copy of guidelines under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R7, copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R9 and closed the evidence on 08.04.2022 by suffering separate statement.

9.             OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Project Officer as Ex.OP3/A, copy of portal detail Ex.OP3/1, copy of guidelines under PMFBY Ex.OP3/2, copy of letter dated 19.02.2021 Ex.OP3/3 and closed the evidence on 22.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

10.           We have heard the complainant, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2 and representative of OP no.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 the complaint, has vehemently argued that he has obtained an agriculture loan from the OP No.1 under scheme of KCC facility. Under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 had been debiting the insurance premium from his account. Due to heavy rainfall in his area, his crop was badly damaged. He moved an application before the Agriculture Department for inspection of his damaged crop. Agriculture Department and insurance company surveyed his damaged crop. Insurance company i.e. OP no.2 has refused to pay the insurance claim to him on the ground that land of the complainant is not insured with OP. Complainant requested the OPs several times to make the payment of compensation, but they failed to pay the same. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

12.           Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.1 while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that after deduction of premium amount under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 remitted premium amount 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 against OP no.1.

13.           Learned counsel for OPs no.2 and 3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that as per the PMFBY: Actual Yield (AY) kilogram/hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare in such cases the farmers are not liable for compensation. In the present case the Actual Yield (AY) 3403.0815 kilogram/hectare was more than Threshold yield (TY) 3332.07 kilogram/hectare for crop:- paddy in village Dachaur hence the complainant is not liable for compensation. He further argued that all the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claim has been furnished by the government and accordingly the insurance company has calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. He further argued that the OP no.1 bank has wrongly uploaded the name of the village of complainant on the portal ID. Thus, there is no fault on the part of the insurance company and insurance company is not liable for the wrong act committed by OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

14.           OP no.3 submitted that the crop of the complainant was damaged due to heavy rainfall. OP no.3 and Loss Assessor of OP no.2 inspected the fields of complainant on 03.10.2018 and prepared the report and found that the crop of complainant has damaged to the extent of 60% in 2.5 acres.

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

16.           It is proved on record that complainant is an agriculturist and is having his agriculture land in village Achhanpur and had obtained crop loan from OP no.1. OP no.1 (bank) had deducted premium amount for insurance of crop on behalf of OP no.2 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, as is evident from copy of statement of account Ex.C3. The particulars were uploaded on the portal by OP no.1. The complainant has alleged that his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018 was damaged but he did not receive any compensation from insurance company.

17.           The OP no.1 bank has also pleaded that after deduction of premium amount from the account of complainant by OP no.1, same was remitted in the account OP no.2. The OP no.2 insurance company has also not denied the fact that they did not receive any premium amount for insuring the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. So, it is duly proved on record that OP no.2 has received insurance premium amount of Rs.1392.04 from banker of complainant i.e. OP no.1 on behalf of complainant for insuring the paddy crop of complainant of kharif, 2018.

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 in are of 2.5 acres 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 Dachaur (62). The complainant, in order to prove damage to his paddy crop of Kharif, 2018, has also placed on record copy of inspection report Ex.C2, conducted by agricultural department and representative of insurance company, reveals that on 03.10.2018 agriculture department and representative of insurance company had inspected the field of complainant in complainant’s presence and found that his paddy crop in area of 2.5 acres of land was damaged to the extent of 60% due to water logging. So, it is proved on record from said report Ex.C2, that paddy crop of complainant in area of 2.5 acres of land in village Achhanpur 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 Dachaur (62), therefore, complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The OP no.3 in its written version specifically 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 Dachaur(62) instead of village Achhanpur  and as such OP no.2  has taken stand that crop of complainant in village Acchanpur 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. Moreover, OP no.1 bank has also relied upon copy of 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 as in the said meetings it was resolved that cases where farmers record mismatch and premium paid by Banks to insurance company on time, whereas insurance company not returned premium to bank in time, insurance company will pay the claim to farmers as per farmer record.

19.           Learned counsel for OP no.2 has placed on file copy of the minutes of 4^th Meeting of State Level Grievance Committee held on 14.1.2021 Ex.R9, 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.”

20.           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, 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.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 hence the plea of OP no.1 that actual yield was more than threshold yield in village Dachaur (62) is not relevant. Furthermore, the OP no.2 has also not proved by cogent and convincing evidence that actual yield of village of complainant i.e. Achhanpur was more than the threshold yield. 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. 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.

22.           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 2.5 acres of land and as per Agriculture report Ex.C2, complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 60% of his crop in his above said land. 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 suffered loss in his 2.5 acres of land to the extent of 60%. In this way, the loss of complainant comes to Rs.67,500/-, but complainant claimed a sum of  Rs.1,00,000 /-(Rs. one lakh) for the damages of his crop. Thus, the complainant is entitled for Rs.67,500 /- alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses

22.           In view of our above discussion, we partly allow this complaint qua OP no.2 and direct the OP no.2 to pay the amount of Rs.67,500/-(Rs. Sixty seven thousand five hundred only) 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.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complaint against OP 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:25.05.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member