Haryana

Kaithal

345/20

Kewal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Mandeep Singh

16 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                Complaint No.: 345 of 2020.

                                                Date of institution: 16.10.2020.

                                                Date of decision: 15.05.2023.       

 

Kewal Singh aged about 56 years son of Sh. Bhupinder Singh resident of Village Sadarheri Tehsil, Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Axis Bank Ltd. 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.

                                                                                                                                                                ...Respondents.

 

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

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.   

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.                  

 

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

                Shri Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                Shri Amit Kaushik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

Shri Pushpinder Saini, Govt. Pleader for the Opposite Party No.3.

 

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

1.             Kewal Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereifafter referred to as the Act) against the respondents.

2.             It is alleged in the complaint that complainant is permanent resident of village Sadarheri Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal and as per inspection report performa under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) duly attested by Block Agriculture, Cheeka (Kaitha) is showing that the 9 acres of land was inspected in that village. He was also having its account with OP No.1 bearing account No.915030014346477. He sown Paddy Crops in the season of 2018 in his said 9 acres land and got insured the same under the scheme Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) vide policy No. 40106181150650548101 from OP No.2 through OP No.1 and the premium amount of Rs.7,443.12/- was paid to OP No.2 through OP No.1 on 14.12.2018. There were heavy rains in the area during the period, due to which, his standing crops was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OPs and a team consisting of Block Agriculture Development Officer, Cheeka along with coordinator of OP No.2 visited the flood affected area and assessed the damage to the standing crop of 9 acres of land to the tune of 60-70%. He visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but they failed to release the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their respective written statements.

4.             OP No.1, in its written statement specifically stated that the complainant is being loanee farmers/KCC-Kissan Credit Card holder and as per scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna ( PMFBY) and notification dated 17.06.2016 issued by Government of Haryana bearing memo No. 3009/Agri. II(I)-2016/10854 and notification bearing No. 941-Agri. II(I)/2018/4332 dated 30.03.2018, the crops  was required  to be covered under this Scheme compulsorily. It is further submitted that the complainant is having KCC account with OP No. 1 and he has availed credit facility from OP No. 1 vide account No. 9150300143446477. It is further submitted that OP No. 1 had deducted an amount of Rs.4832.48/- from the account of the complainant for Fasal Bima Yojna for Kharif 2018 on 26.07.2018 and an amount of Rs. 2610.64/- was deducted for Fasal Bima Yojna of Rabi 2018 on 07.12.2018   and the same was transferred in the account of OP No. 2 within their stipulated periods. There is no deficiency in service on their part; therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

5.             OP No.2, in its written statement that as per averments of the complaint the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Sadarheri, Tehsil Guhla, 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 Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY), Scheme and no documentary proof of alleged loss has been annexed with the complaint to prove the same. It is stated that as per guidelines of scheme immediate intimation was to be given within 48 hours but complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss of crop in Village Sadarheri Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal within stipulated period.  There is no deficiency in service on their part, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

6.             The OP No.3, in its written statement 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.  

7.             The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents annexure C-1 to annexure C-5 and closed his evidence.

8.             On the other hand, OP No.1, in order to support its case, tendered affidavit EX.RW1/A along with documents annexure R-3 & annexure R-4 and closed its evidence. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and  documents annexure R1 and annexure R2 closed the same. The OP No.3, in support of its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents annexure R5 to annexure R8 and closed its evidence.

9.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

10.            Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and he was having its account with OP No.1 bearing account No.915030014346477.  It is further argued that the complainant sown Paddy Crops in the season of 2018 in his 9 acres land and got insured the same under the scheme Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) vide policy No. 40106181150650548101 from OP No.2 through OP No.1 and the premium amount of Rs.7,443.12 paise was paid to OP No.2 through OP No.1 on 14.12.2018. There were heavy rains in the area during the period, due to which, his standing crops was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OPs and a team consisting of Block Agriculture Development Officer, Cheeka along with coordinator of OP No.2 visited the flood affected area and assessed the damage to the standing crop of 9 acres of land to the tune of 60-70%. He visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but they failed to release the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has argued that the complainant is having KCC account with OP No. 1 and he has availed credit facility from OP No. 1 vide account No. 9150300143446477. It is further argued that OP No. 1 had deducted an amount of Rs.4832.48/- from the account of the complainant for Fasal Bima Yojna for Kharif 2018 on 26.07.2018 and an amount of Rs. 2610.64/- was deducted for Fasal Bima Yojna of Rabi 2018 on 07.12.2018 and the same was transferred in the account of OP No. 2 within their stipulated periods. 

12.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-Insurance Company has argued that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Sadarheri, Tehsil Guhla, 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 Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY), Scheme and no documentary proof of alleged loss has been annexed with the complaint to prove the same. It is further argued that as per guidelines of scheme immediate intimation was to be given within 48 hours but complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss of crop in Village Sadarheri Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal within stipulated period.

13.            Sh. Pushpinder Saini, GP for the OP No.3-Agriculture Department has stated that the claim does not arise on average yield because in the present case, average yield is greater than threshold yield.  He has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT at the time of arguments, which is Mark-A on the file.   

14.            We have perused the report of Agriculture Department, Mark-A wherein it is mentioned that intimation received for localized claim =Yes, 9 acre and in the column of affected area, 3 acre land is mentioned.  So, the complainant has suffered loss in 3 acres.  So far the liability is concerned, if there was any discrepancy in the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) etc. of the farmers concerned, then it was required for the OP No.1 insurance company to refund back the said amount, within two months of cutoff date to the OP No.2 bank, but nothing has been done on the part of OP No.1 and this Commission rely upon in this regard on “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018” and its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii is relevant, which reads as under:-

“xxii) The Insurance Company shall 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”.  

15.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was the required for OP No.1 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmers concerned to OP No.2 bank after pointing out any discrepancy on its end, within the period of cut off date of two months, but in the case in hand, OP No.1 had neither raised any objection within the period of cutoff date of two months nor intimated to OP No.2 bank regarding any discrepancy in this regard and kept the premium amount with it, and now at the time when crops of complainant was destroyed and he is demanding the claim amount, as per policy from it, then OP No.1 refused to pay the same on this flimsy ground, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. As such, the OP No.1 insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his crop.

16.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.12,355.20 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 3 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.37,066/- (Rs.12,355.20 paise x 3 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Insurance Company.        

17.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.37,066/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  The OP No.2-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against OP No.2-insurance company and dismissed against Ops No.1 & 3.     

18.            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.:15.05.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.