Haryana

Kaithal

403/20

Gurdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Mandeep Singh

21 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.403 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 17.11.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:20.02.2023.

Gurdeep Singh son of Sh. Basawa, resident of Village Sadarheri, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank), Cheeka through its Branch Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Company near Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No.305, Mini Secretariat, Kaithal.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

               

Present:     Sh. Mandeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Dinesh Kwatra, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Ms. Ruchika, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Gurdeep Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.50256965726 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant for the year 2018-19 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 vide policy No.40106181150764500000 and had deducted the amount of Rs.3586.80 paise from the account of complainant as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that in the Kharif 2018, the complainant had sown paddy crops on his agricultural lands and expected bumper crops.  However, due to heavy rainfall in the Village Sadarheri, the paddy crops of the complainant was damaged/ruined due to rainwater lodging/stagnant in agricultural land which was insured from the respondents No.1 & 2.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to respondent No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of complainant alongwith officials of respondent No.2 and assessed 40-50% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land.  The complainant requested the respondents to pay the claim amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  Respondents No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; it is relevant to mention here that amount of total premium of all the loanee farmers of the branch (including the premium of complainant) in the sum of Rs.10,56,080.72 paise alongwith list of loanee farmers and required data was paid to respondent No.2 on 31.07.2018 vide UTR No.ALLA201807315007194739 for coverage of kharif, 2018 and thus only Oriental Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant as per terms and conditions of policy.  It is further relevant to submit that the scheme of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna was introduced by Govt. of India and is being implemented by Govt. of Haryana, wherein all loanee farmers were compulsorily to be covered & premium was deducted by answering respondent bank on the instructions of Govt. of India/Haryana & simply forwarded the premium amount to Oriental Insurance Company alongwith complete data of loanee farmers, hence, the complaint against answering respondent deserves dismissal with special and exemplary costs.  On merits, the  objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Sadarheri District kaithal due to the reason for loss mentioned as Heavy Rain Fall which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme and no documentary proof of alleged loss has been annexed with the complaint to prove the same; that role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institutions that are part of this scheme.  It is further clarified that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers and if any mistake is done by bank of complainant or other institution, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim.  Merely, allegation of claim intimation is not enough to establish that loss actually occurred.  Further, in absence of immediate intimation of claim, survey of damage filed could not be conducted and therefore, it is almost impossible to determine quantification of loss.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint

4.             Respondent No.3 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the fields of complainant as-well-as other farmers were inspected by the officials of answering respondent randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure-R5, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.RW1/A and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

7.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             Ms. Ruchika, SA Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and she has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8553.60 paise per acre.  Hence, for 3 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.25,661/- (Rs.8553.60 paise x  3 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.25,661/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted with cost.  The cost is assessed as Rs.5500/- which will be paid by the respondent No.2-insurance company to the complainant.     

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent No.2 shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.02.2023.

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

                                (Suman Rana),          

                                Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.