Haryana

Kaithal

211/20

Ram Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Davinder Gorsi

16 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.211 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 16.07.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:16.02.2023.

Ram Pal son of Sh. Saptar Singh, R/o Village Barout, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, Axis Bank, Ambala Road, Kaithal.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, 4^th floor, the statement, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Phase-I Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager-160002.

….Respondents.

3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal, Office at Secretariat, Kaithal.

..Performa Respt.

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

               

 

Present:     Sh. Devender Gorsi, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

                Sh. Arvind Khurania, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sunil Kumar, PO Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Ram 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 owned 87 kanal 13 marlas (10 acre) of agriculture land situated at Village Barout Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has a KCC account No.911030048282330 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant of Kharif (paddy) 2017 and rabi (wheat) 2018 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amounts of Rs.4751.17 paise and Rs.4029.03 paise respectively as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in the month of March, 2018 the wheat 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 and assessed 50% to 60% damage of wheat crop of 10 acres of land.  The complainant has suffered a loss of approximately Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. Rs.25,000/- per acre.  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; that the premium amount of Rs.4751.17 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 27.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif-2018.  Lateron consolidated premium amount including the aforesaid premium of Rs.4751.17 paise debited from the KCC account of present complainant, was remitted was remitted to respondent No.2 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Similarly premium amount of Rs.4029.30 paise was deducted on 22.12.2017 from the KCC account of complainant for the crop insurance of Rabi, 2018.  Consolidated amount premiums deducted from the various farmers including the premium debited from account of present complainant of Rabi 2018 crops sent electronically/by way of updating the same in the portal to respondent No.2.  It was the duty of respondent 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.

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the filed the written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the complaint; locus-standi; cause of action; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, Civil Court is the best platform; that the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts from this commission.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent.  On merits, it is stated that as per the actual yield data provided by Govt., there is no deficit/shortfall observed in notified area of Village Barout (3) (Threshold Yield) (TY) minus 4331.34 and actual yield (AY)-4710.68.  As per operation guidelines, deficit percentage comes to=(4331.34-4710.68)/4331.34=0%.  As such, the complaint under reply is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissal.  The other 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 loss was assessed 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-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4 and respondent No.2 tendered into evidence document Annexure-R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             ­­­Sh. Sunil Kumar, PO Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and he 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.5777.02 paise per acre.  Hence, for 10 acre, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.57,770/- (Rs.5777.02 paise x 10 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.57,770/- 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.:16.02.2023.

 

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

                        (Suman Rana),          

                        Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.