Haryana

Ambala

CC/440/2019

Chatan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ambala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

P.K. Mundan

02 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.         :    440 of 2019

                                                          Date of Institution           :     16.12.2019

                                                          Date of decision     :     02.05.2022.

 

Chatan Singh age about 63 years son of Shri Puran Singh R/o Village Bedsan P.O Naggal Tehsil and District Ambala.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1.       Ambala Central Co-operative Bank Limited Branch Jansui Head District Ambala through its Branch Manager.

2.       SBI General Insurance Company, 46 Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, Metro pillar No.129, New Delhi.

3.       Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Krishi Kender, Ambala City.

 

                                                                                       ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Pawan K.Mundan, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

OP No.1 already ex parte.

Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Authorized representative for OP No.3.  

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.89,233.41 as compensation along with the interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f 25.04.2019, till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3.     To pay Rs. 21,000/- as cost of litigation.
4.           Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.
2.  

3.                  Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 did not appear before this Commission and proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 05.01.2021.

4.                 Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to cause of action and jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is stated that crop insurance was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) which operates on area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as an insurance units. For all major crops, insurance units is gram Panchayat and for minor crops, insurance unit is Taluk. Threshold yield (TY) Kilogram/Hectare is fixed for every insurance unit. Actual Yield (AY) 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 the state Government. All the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claims are furnished by the Government and accordingly the insurance company calculate the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) in clause 10:- Assessment of Claims (Wide Spread Calamities) of chapter XI:- Assessment of loss/shortfall in Yield, which reads as under:-

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)

X Sum Insured

Threshold Yield”

 

In the present case, in the absence of application number, answering OP is unable to trace any information regarding the claim and prayed that direction may be issued to the complainant to provide the application number. After receipt of application number, the answering opposite party will crave leave of this Hon’ble Commission to add, amend, alter, and/or delete the contents of the written statement and/or to file additional written statement, in the interest of justice. Complainant is not entitled to get Rs.89233.41, as damages for the loss of the crop and Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith interest and litigation costs as prayed for in the prayer clause. The present complaint filed against it may be dismissed with costs.

5.                Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction, barred by limited and cause of action etc. On merits, it is stated that the answering OP is just a channel of liaisoning agency between farmers, Bank and the Insurance Company and it is not the compensation disbursing agency.  After receiving the application from the complainant, mentioning account No.1100299, answering OP, conducted inundation survey and forwarded the same to the OP No.2. The claim has to be disbursed by the OP No.1 and 2 and not by the answering OP.  Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied by answering OP and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.    

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.2 tendered affidavit of Shri Jitendra Dhabhai, Manager, SBI General Insurance Company Limited, 46, 3^rd Floor, Karol Bagh, Opposite Metro Pillar No.129, New Delhi as Annexure OP2/A alongwith documents Annexure OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2. Authorized representative for the OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Shri Girish Nagpal, working as a Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ambala as Annexure OP3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, learned counsel for the OPs No.2 and authorized representative for the OP No.3 and have also gone through the record very carefully.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in the year 2018, the duly insured paddy crop of the complainant got damaged due to natural disaster and as such complainant was entitled to get the total sum insured of Rs.89233.41, as compensation, but the OPs did not pay him the any amount.   

9.                The learned counsel for the OP No.2 has submitted that the complainant did not submit the documents regarding his agriculture land, coverage available to him under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana scheme and also actual yield. Thus, he is not entitled to get any claim.  

10.              The authorized representative for the OP No.3, has submitted that the letter dated 02.09.2019, Annexure C-4, was issued by the Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Krishi Kender, Ambala City. OP No.3 is just a channel of liaisoning agency between farmers, Bank and it is not the compensation disbursing agency. 

11.              From the perusal of Jamabandi, Annexure C-1, it is evident that agriculture land of the complainant is situated in village Bedsan, HB No.268, Ambala. From the receipt, Annexure C-2, it is apparent that the paddy crop sown by the complainant, in the year 2018, in his 1.2141 hect. of agriculture land situated in village Bedsan, Ambala, was duly insured with the OP No.2, for total Sum Insured of Rs.89,233.41. From the perusal of copy of passbook Annexure C-3, it is evident that complainant is resident of Village Bedsan and premium for insurance of paddy crop for the Kharif season, 2018, was deducted, from his account. From the perusal of letter dated 04.01.2019, Annexure C-4, it is evident that the loss of paddy crop for the Kharif season of 2018, in the village Bedsan was 91%. It may be stated here that in the year 2018, complainant had sown paddy crop in the 1.2141 hect. of land and the same was duly insured for Rs.89233.41, as such, complainant is entitled to get the claim of Rs.81,202.40 (Rs.89,233.41 X 91%).         By not paying the said amount, the insurance company i.e. OP No.2, has committed deficiency in service and is thus liable to pay the amount of Rs.81,202.40, to the complainant alongwith interest. It is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and also liable to pay litigation expenses.

12.              From the record it is borne out that the OPs No.1 and 3 did the needful while performing their duty. Even otherwise, neither any specific allegation has been levelled by the complainant against the OPs No.1 & 3, nor proved against them. Thus, the present complaint filed against the OPs No.1 & 3 is liable to be dismissed.  

13.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OPs No.1 & 3 and allow the same against OP No.2 and direct it, in the following manner:-

1. To pay Rs.81,202.40 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e 16.12.2019, till its realisation.   

 

2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OP No.2 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 02.05.2022.

 

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                             Member                            President

 

 

Present:       Shri Pawan K. Mundan, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

OP No.1 already ex parte.

Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

                   Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Authorized representative for OP No.3.

 

Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been dismissed against the OPs No.1 & 3 and allowed the same against OP No.2. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

Announced on: 02.05.2022.

 

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President