Haryana

Kaithal

207/20

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank Of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kirpal Singh

16 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.207 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 08.07.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:16.01.2023.

Raj Kumar S/o Zile Singh, r/o Village Kutabpur, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, Bank of Baroda, Park Road, 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 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Kirpal Singh, Advocate for the complainant.   

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

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

                Sh. Sunil Kumar, P.O. Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Raj Kumar-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 and possessed land measuring  3.6 acre (29 Kanal 0.2 Marla), detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.831008651000524 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant for the year 2018-19 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.2146.20 paise on 18.07.2018 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 respondent No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of complainant alongwith officials of respondent No.2 and assessed 90% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land.  The complainant requested the respondents 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 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.2146.20 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 18.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif-2018.  Lateron consolidated premium amount including the aforesaid premium of Rs.2146.20 paise debited from the KCC account of present complainant, was remitted was remitted to respondent No.2 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  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 an amount of Rs.14,486.85 paise was credited on 16.03.2019 for damage of Kharif crop & thereafter, an amount of Rs.13,258.41 paise was credited on 17.07.2020 for damage of Rabi crop on account of PMFBY claim to the account of complainant on the instructions and data as provided by the insurance company.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable because as per data of Village Kutabpur, there is no yield loss, however, localized claim in the sum of Rs.14,41,079/- of the village has already been paid to the banker of the complainant on 08.03.2019 vide No.64190207370791 for further crediting in the account of farmers including the complainant; 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 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 respondent.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent.  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 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.   

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith document Annexure-R1, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure-R6 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Adv. for the respondent No.1-bank has stated that the amount of Rs.14,486.85 paise has already been given to the complainant on 16.03.2019.  The Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4276.80 paise per acre.  Hence, for 3.6 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.15,396/- (Rs.4276.80 paise x 3.6 acre loss).  It is clear that the amount of Rs.14,486.85 paise has already been given to the complainant.  Therefore, after deducting the amount of Rs.14,486.85 paise from the total compensation amount of Rs.15,396/-, balance amount of Rs.910/- shall be paid by the respondent No.2-insurance company to the complainant.   

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.910/- 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.3300/- 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.:16.01.2023.

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.