State Bank Of India vs Bijendar Singh & 2 Ors

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member

The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  has been filed by State Bank of India  against the Impugned Order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in First Appeal No. 143/2021 whereby the First Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the Order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jind, Haryana in Complaint Case No. 70 of 2019 filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2, was confirmed.

Brief facts of the case as per the Complaint are that Respondents No. 1 and 2 had a land in village Siwana Mal, Safidon, Jind, Haryana and they had taken a loan of ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) from State Bank of Patiala in which they had a joint account. The State Bank of Patiala was later merged with the State Bank of India and is now known as the State Bank of India. The bank deducted ₹2537/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Seven Only) on 27.07.2016, for Kharif Crop (Paddy), and ₹1674.75/- (Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Four and Seventy Five Paise Only) on 27.12.2016, for Rabi Crop (Wheat) under the “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana”. However, instead of sending this amount to the Insurance Company’s Jind branch, the Bank mistakenly sent it to the Sonepat branch. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 raised their concern by submitting an application to the C.M. Window in Gohana, Sonepat, on 12.09.2017. Due to inundation, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 suffered a loss of ₹29,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Only) in the paddy crop and ₹40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only)in the wheat crop, as stated in the Survey Report. The Agriculture Department of Jind mistakenly listed the Respondents No. 1 and 2’s name and village in a different manner due to the Petitioner Bank’s error. This caused the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to be ineligible for the compensation they were entitled to receive, leading to financial and emotional distress. Hence, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Commission.

The District Commission, vide its ex-parte Order dated 12.02.2021, allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to indemnify the loss caused to the Respondents No. 1 and 2 due to its fault. The District Commission directed the Petitioner to pay in equal shares to both Respondents No. 1 and 2, ₹75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand Only) along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of Order, ₹6000/- (Rupees Six Thousand Only) on account of mental harassment and hardship, and also an amount of ₹5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as litigation expenses within 45 days from the date of the Order, failing which the Petitioner was to be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default.

Aggrieved by the Order of the District Commission, the Petitioner approached the State Commission, Haryana, by filing its First Appeal No. 143/2021. The State Commission, vide its impugned Order dated 24.03.2023, dismissed the Appeal filed and confirmed the Order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the District Commission, Jind.

The relevant portion of the Order of the State Commission in First Appeal No. 143/2021, dated 24.03.2021 is set out as below-

“The State Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Commission. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.”

It is a matter of record that land of the Complainants falls in the village Siwana Mal in the District of Jind.  Undeniably, the Petitioner- Bank by mistake remitted the premium for the area of Gangana in the District of Sonepat, on account of which the Insurance Company could not proceed further in entertaining the claim.

Both the Ld. Fora below rightly took note of the rules framed under the operational Guidelines for the PMFBY Scheme.  According to proviso XVII(1)(2) of the Guidelines, “(1) Insurance companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intermediaries or directly. Any loss in transit due to negligence by these agencies or non-remittances of premium by these agencies, the concerned by/intermediaries shall be liable for payment of claim. (2) If 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 misreporting.”

(Emphasis added)

In view of the aforesaid Guidelines governing the Insurance Scheme in question, the liability to satisfy the claim would undeniably fall upon the Petitioner-Bank, since it had wrongly remitted the premium for an entirely different area, which was far-away and totally different from the land of the Complainants, where the damage had taken place. Consequently, there was no error on the part of both the Ld. Fora below in thus holding the Petitioner-Bank liable to satisfy the claim of the Complainants.

This Commission therefore finds no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned concurrent decisions of both the Ld. Fora below.

Dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.