Haryana

Kaithal

347/20

Sukhmail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Mandeep Singh

03 Aug 2023

ORDER

                        

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.347/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 16.10.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:03.08.2023.

Sukhmail Singh aged about 60 years son of 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.

….OPs.

        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:     Sh. Mandeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant.   

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

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the OP No.2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, Govt. Pleader for the OP No.3. 

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

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

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.915030021121720 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant for the year 2018-19 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the OP No.2 vide policy No.40106191010522091201 and had deducted the amount of Rs.9164.45 paise from the account of complainant as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that in the Kharif 2018, the complainant had sown paddy crops on his agricultural lands and expected bumper crops.  However, due to heavy rainfall in the Village Sadarheri, the paddy crops of the complainant was damaged/ruined due to rainwater lodging/stagnant in agricultural land which was insured from the OPs No.1 & 2.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and assessed 60-70% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land.  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.     

2.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  OPs 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.5951.45 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 26.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif-2018.  Lateron consolidated premium amount including the aforesaid premium of Rs.5951.45 paise debited from the KCC account of present complainant, was remitted to OP No.2 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Similarly, an amount of Rs.3213.71 paise was deducted from the account of complainant on 07.12.2018 and remitted to OP No.2 alongwith the premiums of other farmers.  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 OP has no role to play in settlement of claim of crop insurance, dispute if any is between the complainant and OP No.2.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             OP No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Sadarheri 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 PMFBY Scheme and no documentary proof of alleged loss has been annexed with the complaint to prove the same; 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 clarified that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers and if any mistake is done by bank of complainant or other institution, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount; 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.  Merely, allegation of claim intimation is not enough to establish that loss actually occurred.  Further, in absence of immediate intimation of claim, survey of damage filed could not be conducted and therefore, it is almost impossible to determine quantification of loss.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             OP 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 fields of complainant as-well-as other farmers were inspected by the officials of answering OP 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-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4, OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R5 to Annexure-R19, OP No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R20 to Annexure-R22 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

8.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has an account No.915030021121720 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant for the year 2018-19 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the OP No.2 vide policy No.40106191010522091201 and had deducted the amount of Rs.9164.45 paise from the account of complainant as insurance premium amount.  It is further argued that in the Kharif 2018, the complainant had sown paddy crops on his agricultural lands and expected bumper crops.  However, due to heavy rainfall in the Village Sadarheri, the paddy crops of the complainant was damaged/ruined due to rainwater lodging/stagnant in agricultural land which was insured from the OPs No.1 & 2.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and assessed 60-70% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land.  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.

9.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has argued that the premium amount of Rs.5951.45 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 26.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif-2018.  Lateron consolidated premium amount including the aforesaid premium of Rs.5951.45 paise debited from the KCC account of present complainant, was remitted to OP No.2 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Similarly, an amount of Rs.3213.71 paise was deducted from the account of complainant on 07.12.2018 and remitted to OP No.2 alongwith the premiums of other farmers, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any.

10.            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 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 PMFBY Scheme and no documentary proof of alleged loss has been annexed with the complaint to prove the same; 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 clarified that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers and if any mistake is done by bank of complainant or other institution, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount.

11.            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.  

12.            We have perused the survey report of Agriculture Department as per Annexure-R1, wherein it is mentioned in the column of Intimation Received for Localized Claim=9 acres.  But as per survey report relating to complainant, which is Annexure-R3, it is amply clear that the complainant has occurred loss in 3 acres.  So far as 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”.  

13.            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 to the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his crop.

14.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.12,355.20 paise per acre as per Annexure-R1.  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.        

15.            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.     

16.            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.:03.08.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.