Haryana

Kaithal

313/19

Surinder Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Pawan Kumar Midha

31 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.313 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 25.09.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:31.08.2022.

Surinder Pal @ Surender Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Parkash, resident of House No.358, near Civil Hospital, Ward No.10, Tehsil & Sub Division Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Indian Bank (previously Allahabad Bank, now merged with Indian Bank) Branch at Kartar Enclave, near Anaj Mandi, Kaithal Road, Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Company, Opposite Hotel Gold Inn, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
3. Department of Agriculture & Farmer’s Welfare, through its Deputy Director, at Room No.103, Mini Secretariat Kaithal.
4. Indian Bank (previously Allahabad Bank, now merged with Indian Bank) Registered Office at 2 , Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata (West Bangal) through its Managing Director & C.E.O. now at PB No.5555, 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai-600014, Tamilnadu.

….Respondents.

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Pawan Kumar Midha, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Dinesh Kwatra, Advocate for the respondents.No.1 & 4.

Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Adv. alongwith Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Surinder Pal-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (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 and cultivating 4 acre land situated at Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.50295645008 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant of Kharif 2018 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.2328/- as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in the month of September, 2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant reported the matter to the respondent No.3 and the officials of respondents No.3 in return inspected the agriculture fields of complainant on 23.10.2018 and they completed all the formalities for assessing the damage of insured crop.  It is further alleged that despite several requests and visits, the respondents did not pay the amount of damaged crop to the complainant.  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 statement separately.  Respondents No.1 & 4 filed the joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondents as the premium for kharif, 2018 under the scheme of crop insurance was paid by the answering respondent to the respondent No.2 i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. and it is the respondent No.2 only, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any.  It is relevant to mention here that amount of premium in the sum of Rs.10,56,080.72 paise alongwith list of loanee farmers (including the complainant) and other required data was paid to respondent No.2 on 31.07.2018 vide UTR No.ALLA-201807315007194739 but respondent No.2 failed to get the insurance done and surprisingly now after expiry of statutory period of insurance, the respondent No.2 refunded an amount of Rs.54,711/- vide UTR No.N127190233246049 on 07.05.2019 after gap of more than 9 months and after telephonic enquiry from respondent No.2, it was revealed that in few accounts including the complainant, the insurance was not done, hence, their premium have been refunded.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that as per record, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Guhla, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Rain Fall” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme and to prove the same, no documentary proof of any kind has been annexed with the complaint; 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.  In fact, the land of complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  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 and evasively denied all the facts contained in the complaint and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW3/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondents No.1 & 4 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R1,  Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure-R4, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             Sh. Pawan Kumar Midha, Adv. for the complainant has stated that vide Annexure-C2, which is the bank account statement of complainant, the premium of Rs.2328/- has been sent to Op No.1-bank which has forwarded the same to insurance company-respondent No.2. 

9.             Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Adv. alongwith Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company have argued that the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Guhla, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Rain Fall” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme and to prove the same, no documentary proof of any kind has been annexed with the complaint.  They have further argued that the land of complainant is not insured with the insurance company-respondent No.2.  They have further argued that the premium amount was refunded to the respondent No.1-bank.  Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent No.2-insurance company has stated that at present, the amount of premium is lying with the Allahabad Bank (now merged with Indian Bank).

10.            Sh. Dinesh Kawatra, Adv. alongwith Sh. Deepak Kumar, Adv.  for the respondents No.1 & 4 have stated that the amount of premium in the sum of Rs.10,56,080.72 paise alongwith list of loanee farmers (including the complainant) and other required data was paid to respondent No.2 on 31.07.2018 vide UTR No.ALLA-201807315007194739 but respondent No.2 failed to get the insurance done and surprisingly now after expiry of statutory period of insurance, the respondent No.2 refunded an amount of Rs.54,711/- vide UTR No.N127190233246049 on 07.05.2019 after gap of more than 9 months and after telephonic enquiry from respondent No.2, it was revealed that in few accounts including the complainant, the insurance was not done, hence, their premium have been refunded.  Sh. Dinesh Kawatra, Adv. for the respondents No.1 & 4 has placed reliance upon the authority laid down by Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sukhwinder Singh etc. bearing first appeal No.528 of 2018 which has been decided on 19.07.2019 in which order of refund was given to indemnify the complainant as respondent No.2-Reliance General Insurance Company was having the amount of premium and respondent No.2-Insurance Company gave notice of refund of the premium only after the loss had occurred to the complainant.  He has further argued that the cut-off date was 15.12.2018 and premium was refunded by the insurance company after cut-off date.  He has drawn our attention towards meeting of banks under “PMFBY” dt. 11.09.2019, wherein it is mentioned in clause “d” as under:-

                “Cases where banks did not enter data on portal, but premium is deposited to Insurance Companies in time and premium is not returned by the Insurance Company in time, then Insurance Company will have to pay the claim.”  

11.            Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and he has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village survey, under PMFBT, which is mentioned as under:-

Claim based on Localized Survey:

Intimation Received for Localized Claim          = Yes

Type of Survey                                           = Village Level

Loss Percentage                                          =49%

 

Cost of Cultivation                                       =Rs.46950/-per hect.

 

Cost of Cultivation                                       =Rs.19008/-per acre

 

Approx. Claim for 1 Acre                      =19008x49/100=Rs.9313.92

 

                In the present case, the complainant has suffered loss in 31 kanal (3 acre 7 kanal) 13 marla as per record.  So, as per above-mentioned crop claim based on Village survey submitted by Agriculture Department, Kaithal, Rs.9313.92 paise per acre is awarded to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.36,848.17 paise (Rs.9313.92 paise x 3 acre 7 kanal 13 marla) i.e. to say Rs.36,848/-.  Sh. Dinesh Kawatra, Adv. for the respondents No.1 & 4-bank has stated that earlier the premium amount of Rs.2328/- was returned to the complainant on 12.07.2019.  Hence, he has stated that the amount of Rs.2328/- be deducted from the amount to be awarded to the complainant.  So, the amount of Rs.2328/- be deducted from the awarded amount of Rs.36,848/-.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.34,520/- (Rs.36,848/- less Rs.2328/-).      

12.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.34,520/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 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. 

13.            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.:31.08.2022.    

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.