Haryana

Kaithal

187/20

Gurdev - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amarjeet Singh

04 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.187/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 03.07.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:04.01.2023.

Gurdev S/o Sh. Ram Dhari r/o near Petrol Pump, Village Khurana, Tehsil Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

…Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, State Bank of India, Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.

….Respondents.

3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department, Kaithal Office at Room No.305, Secretariat, Kaithal.

 

..Performa Respondent.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

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

                Sh. D.R.Saini, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

                Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

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

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Gurdev-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 69 Kanal 6 Marla out of total land measuring 117 Kanal 17 Marla, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.31938304811 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of Kharif (paddy) for the period 2018-19 with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.8281/- on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in that area on 24.09.2018 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 80% 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 was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018-19 and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account No.024800210002658 of PNB through NEFT No.SBIN118219703469 on 31.07.2018 itself alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Soft copy of consolidated detailed list of farmers/proposals/declarations pertaining to different villages (who were loanee farmer of SBI Habri) including that of present complainant were prepared by respondent No.1 and same was also submitted to respondent No.2 on 31.07.2018.  Since respondent No.2 had already received premium amount on behalf of present complainant on 31.07.2018 itself alongwith consolidated list of farmers/proposals/declarations pertaining to present complainant also, so, respondent No.2 was under legal obligation to issue respective crop insurance cover in favour of complainant to process as to adjudicate their claim, if any, as per Operational Guidelines of PMFBY, Insurance law, law of contract and notification dt. 17.06.2016 as per crop insurance policy.  On merits, the 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 as per record, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Khurana, District Kaithal, due to the reason mentioned as “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.  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.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  It is further stated that as per data provided by Agriculture Department of Village Khanpur, the actual yield (3586.27) is less than threshold yield (4010.58), so as per NCI Portal and as per data uploaded on NCI Portal and as per data provided by government agency, complainant was entitled for yield loss claim of Rs.43,802/- for the land of complainant inn village Khanpur and the same was paid to the banker of complainant-respondent No.1 vide UTR No.95190220546779 dt. 05.04.2019 total amounting to Rs.12,71,412/-.  On merits, the 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, the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R4 & Annexure-R5 and respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R6 to Annexure-R10 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company has stated that the amount of Rs.43,802/- has already been given to the complainant which shall be deducted from the main amount of compensation.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8553.60 paise per acre.  Hence, for 8 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.68,429/- (Rs.8553.60 paise x 8 acre loss).  It is clear that the amount of Rs.43,802/- has already been paid to the complainant.  Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.43,802/- from the total compensation amount of Rs.68429/-, remaining amount of Rs.24,627/- 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.24,627/- 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.  In the present case, respondent No.1-bank has given wrong name of the area in which land was under survey for the damage of crops.  The name of the area is actually Khurana while negligently, the officials of bank-respondent No.1 have given wrong name of the area to be Khanpur.  So, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank-respondent No.1 which shall be paid to the complainant.  The name of village be corrected in the record. 

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents 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.:04.01.2023.

 

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.