BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint No.287/17.

Date of instt.:30.10.2017. 

                                                         Date of Decision:08.01.2019

Sudhan alias Soran s/o Shri Ganpat, r/o village Bhuna, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.                                                                                                                                        ……….Complainant.

                                            Versus

Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

                        Smt. Suman Rana, Member.                       

Present:          Shri Ranti Ramam Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

                         Shri Manoj Ichhpilani, Adv. for the Opposite Party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is agriculturist and is owner of nine acres land situated within the revenue of Bhuna, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal, and sown paddy crops and wheat crops in his agriculture land. It is further alleged that he has saving account No.915030010722190 with the respondent bank and has also limit with the respondent bank and regularly paying the loan/limit amount to the respondent bank. It is further alleged that he has sown rabbi wheat crops in his agriculture land and due to rain and hails storm, the wheat crops sown in his 9 acres land destroyed and the report has been made. It is further alleged that the insurance of his crops was not done by the respondent bank in the month of December 2016 under the Fasal Yojna scheme, while the respondent bank has been previously regularly deducted the crops insurance from his account and due to which, he could not get compensation from the Govt. under Fasal Bima of crops. It is further alleged that he has limit with the respondent bank and has been paying the installment of loan/limit within time and respondent bank has deducted Rs.3142/- from his account as Fasal Bima amount in the month of 7/2017. It is further alleged that he moved an application to the respondent bank, but to no effect. This way, the OP is deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.  

2.     Upon notice, opposite party appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction and locus-standi. It is further submitted that wheat crops of the complainant have not been destroyed as alleged by the complainant and no report has been submitted by him to the respondent; that the complainant has not mentioned the year of the alleged rabi wheat crops; that the respondent has not deducted any premium prior to 29.7.2017; that in the year 2016, the Government Haryana issued the Notification regarding implementation of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna vide Notification dt. 17.6.2016 and this scheme was effective up to 31.12.16; that it was a new scheme, but the respondent started to implement the aforesaid scheme forthwith; that the respondent tried its best to implement the aforesaid instructions of Government within the stipulated period; that it was a new scheme and a new scheme always takes time in its complete implementation and its interpretation; that furthermore it was not mandatory for the respondent to deduct the premium of the insurance from the account of the complainant; that the respondent has to follow the instructions of the Govt. and there was no malafide intention behind the same and there was no privity of contract between the parties regarding the same; that in the year 2017, a new notification was issued by the Govt. and in the month of July 2017, an amount of Rs.3142.43 was deducted first time on 29.7.17 towards premium of insurance of crops of Kharif 2017 of the complainant in accordance with the instructions of the Govt.; that prior to it, no premium was deducted towards the insurance of crops of complainant from his account; furthermore, the complainant has never applied for the deduction of premium of insurance of his crops. The rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same.

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed evidence on 25.05.2018. The OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; document Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 13.11.2018.

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant as well as for the OPs and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.     Undisputedly, the complainant is an agriculturist having nine acre of land, upon which, he had sown paddy crops and wheat crops. He is a consumer of OP bank having Saving Account bearing No.915030010722190 alongwith limit facility. The OP bank has deducted an amount of Rs.3142.43 on 29.7.2017 towards premium of insurance of crops of Kharif 2017 under PMFBY as is evident through Ex.C8.

6.     The complainant has come with the plea that the OP bank kept on deducting the insurance premium on account of crop insurance under PMFBY regularly from his account but the OP bank has not deducted the premium for the month of December 2016 under the said scheme due to which he could not get the compensation from the Government under the said scheme as there was damage to the sown crops.

7.     On the other hand, the OP bank contended that in the year 2017, a new notification was issued by the Government and an amount of Rs.3142.43 was deducted first time on 29.07.2017 towards premium of insurance of crops of Kharif 2017 of the complainant in accordance with the instructions of the Govt. and prior to it, no premium was deducted towards the insurance of crops of complainant from his account. Moreover, the complainant has never applied for the deduction of premium of insurance of his crops and there is no deficiency in service on account of OP bank, rather it acted as per the instructions issued by the Government.

8.            As per Annexure C8, the OP bank has deducted an amount of Rs.3142.43 on 29.7.2017 towards premium of insurance of crops of Kharif 2017 under PMFBY.  As per Jamabandi for the year 2013-14 the complainant has been shown owner of land around 7.2 (58 kanal) acres of land and he had mortgaged the same with the OP/bank for a sum of Rs.10 lacs.  As per notification dated 17.06.2016 the scheme under which the premium for insurance of loan was to be deducted was optional for non-loanee farmers and was compulsory for loanee farmers. The relevant column No.6 of the notification dated 17.06.2016 is as under:

                6.Farmers to be covered

a) All farmers including share-croppers and tenant farmers growing the notified crops in the IU will be eligible for coverage under the scheme.

b) All farmers availing seasonal agricultural operations (SAO) loans from Finance institution (i.e. laonee farmers) for the notified crops would be covered  compulsory.

c) The scheme will be optional for the non-loanee farmers.

In this notification in column No.10 cutoff date for receipt of proposals of farmers/debit of premium from farmers accounts’ (loanee and non-loanee)  has been shown as Khariff ( July, 31) and Rabi (December, 31). Since the complainant has obtained a loan from OP-bank, therefore, it was for the OP-bank to deduct the premium qua the insurance of crops for Rabi 2016 being fallen under Sub Column B of Column No.6 but due to inaction on the part of OP-bank the complainant could not claim the compensation which could have arisen due to damage of crops for Rabi 2016 had the OP-bank deducted the insurance premium in time.  In para No.4 of the reply the Op bank had mentioned that a new notification has been issued by the government in the month of July, 2017 and in compliance thereof, the premium was deducted from the account of complainant but no such notification has been brought on the case file, therefore, we have no other option but to believe on the notification dated 17.06.2016.  Since it was the duty of the Op/bank to deduct the premium for crop insurance from the account of the complainant, therefore, it is ceased to raise such plea that the complainant has not approached it for deduction of premium qua crop insurance.  It is very well established that due to the lapse on the part of the Op-bank in not deducting the premium for crop insurance the complainant has not only suffered financial loss besides mental agony and harassment.

9.                     As per Ex.C6, the loss to the crops of the complainant has been assessed at 50-60 % in 9 acres of land but as per jamabandi for the year 2013-14 the complainant has mortgaged around 7.2 (58 kanal) acres of land with the OP-bank, therefore, he is entitled for the loss for the crop upto 50-60% only for the mortgaged land with the Op-bank. In the report Ex.C6, there was loss of the crop in 9 acres of land upto 50% to 60% but in fact the complainant has been owner in possession of the land around 7 acres 2 kanal so we are taking minimum loss 50-60 %. Had the complainant yielded the crops then the amount would have definitely come to Rs.20000/- for crop value for one acre and as per report he has suffered loss upto 50-60 %, therefore,  the insured amount for 7 acres 2 kanals acre  is taken as Rs.75000/- in lump sum as financial loss for the said land.

10.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.75000/- (Rs.10,000/- per acre) in lump sum to the complainant as compensation on account of damage of his crops upto 50-60% . We further direct the OP No.2 & 3 to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of this order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.08.01.2019             (Suman Rana)            (Rajbir Singh)

                                Member.                    Presiding Member.

Present:         Shri Ranti Raman Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

Shri Manoj Ichhpilani, Adv. for the Opposite Party.

                     Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.

Dated: 08.01.2019.      Member                     Presiding Member