Haryana

Kaithal

256/21

Partap Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kirpal Singh

14 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                        Complaint No.: 256 of 2021.

                                                        Date of institution: 08.10.2021.

                                                        Date of decision:14.07.2023.

 

Partap Singh age about 61 years S/o Mehar Singh, resident of Village Chandana, District Kaithal.

                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. The Manager, Axis Bank, Branch Ambala Road, District Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.   
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal office at Room No. 305, Secretariat, Kaithal.                                                           
   •  

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection, Act

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.   

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.                  

 

Present:     Shri Kirpal 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

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

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned and possessed land measuring 11.5 acres, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has account No.913030016953965 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2018-19 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.6982.50 paise on 06.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 23 and 24 September, 2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and the loss of paddy crops was assessed upto the extent of 70%.  The complainant requested the OPs 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 OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  OP 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; that the premium amount of Rs.6982.50 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 06.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif-2018 (paddy).  Lateron consolidated premium amount including the aforesaid premium of Rs.6982.50 paise debited from the KCC account of present complainant, was remitted to respondent No.2 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  It was the duty of OP No.2-insurance company to compulsorily verify and to reconcile the data uploaded by the bank and to take necessary information and action regarding insurance policy of farmers through National Crop Insurance Portal within stipulated date/cut off date and in case of any deficiency/mismatch same would have to be reported to concerned bank branch/State.  On merits, it is stated that the answering respondent has no role to play in settlement of claim of crop insurance, dispute if any is between the complainant and respondent No.2.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             OP No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that as per record, the complainant is not insured with the answering OP.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Chandana, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy 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 the present case, the complainant is claiming for paddy crop of Village Chandana, Distt. Kaithal.  As per yield data of village Chandana provided by Govt., actual yield is more than the threshold yield, hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company and the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.  However, it is made clear that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by Bank of farmers.  If any mistake is done by bank of complainant or other institution, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim; 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.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering OP.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

5.             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.   

6.             The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents annexure C-1 to annexure C-3 and closed his evidence.

7.             On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-E2, Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith document Annexure-R3, Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R4 & Annexure-R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

9.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned and possessed land measuring 11.5 acres, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is further argued that the complainant has account No.913030016953965 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2018-19 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.6982.50 paise on 06.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 23 and 24 September, 2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and the loss of paddy crops was assessed upto the extent of 70%.  The complainant requested the OPs 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 OPs.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Puran & others, decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 19.12.2019 reported in 2021(2) CLT 171 and General Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Nain Singh and others decided by Himachal Prasdesh State Commission on 05.03.2008 reported in 2008(3) CPJ 165. 

10.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that as per PMFBY, Scheme the bank debited from respective KCC account of complainant on 06.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018 amounting to Rs.6982.50/- and as such premium amount was transfer to OP No. 2.

11.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Chandana, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy 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.  It is further argued 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 argued that as per yield data of village Chandana provided by Govt., actual yield is more than the threshold yield, hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company and the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.     

12.            Sh. Pushkar Saini, GP for the OP No.3 has argued that no intimation was given by the complainant to the Agriculture Department, so, complainant is not entitled for claim based on Localized Survey.  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.   

13.            The objection raised by ld. counsel for the OP No.2 as-well-as OP No.3 is that intimation regarding loss was not given by the complainant.  To rebut the said contention, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the law laid down in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Puran etc. (supra), wherein it is held by Hon’ble National Commission that “Plea of insurance company that no privity of contract between petitioner and complainant and no intimation of loss given-Admittedly, premium for crop insurance came to be paid from accounts of complainant-Therefore, it cannot be said that complainant are not consumers of petitioner company-Further, in view of alleged failure to intimate loss to insurer, written version filed by State Bank of India before District Forum shows that scheme did not envisage any such intimation-Therefore, revision petitions dismissed with liberty to petitioner company to avail such remedy as may be open to it in law against concerned Govt.”  The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case as the premium of Rs.6982.50 paise was deducted by the OP No.1-bank from the account of complainant under the PMFBY scheme.  So, the contention of OPs No.2 & 3 that no intimation was given has no force.  In the present case, the complainant has occurred loss in 11.5 acre.  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.2 insurance company to refund back the said amount, within two months of cutoff date to the OP No.1 bank, but nothing has been done on the part of OP No.2 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”.  

14.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was the required for OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmers concerned to OP No.1 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.2 had neither raised any objection within the period of cutoff date of two months nor intimated to OP No.1 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.2 refused to pay the same on this flimsy ground, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. As such, the OP No.2 insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant for the loss suffered by them due to destruction of their crop.

15.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9028.80 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 11.5 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.1,03,831/- (Rs.9028.80 paise x 11.5 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Insurance Company.        

16.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.1,03,831/- 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.     

17.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP 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.:14.07.2023

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.