Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/327/2018

Bhajan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Virender Jakhar

06 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                      Complaint Case No.327 of 2018.                                                                Date of institution:09.10.2018.                                                          Date of decision: 06.07.2023

Bhajan Lal son of Mula Ram resident of village Bhuthan Kalan Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Canara Bank, Branch Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited SCO, No.150 to 156 Sector-9C Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Area Manager-Agri Business.

                                                                   ...Opposite parties.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Present:          Sh.Virender Jahkar, Advocate, for the complainant.                                     Sh.Sandeep Bhatia, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                             Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.2.                                        

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.    

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is  owner of agriculture land, situated at Village Bhuthan Kalan Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the details of which is mentioned in para No.1 in the compliant; that the complainant has an account No.2343840002602 with the OP No.1; that the complainant got insured his under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2017 with the OP No.2 and regarding this Op No.1 had deducted an amount of Rs.2039.27/-  in the name of ‘Crop Insurance’ from his account; that the complainant had sown cotton crop on the land in question but it got damaged due to heavy rain fall, hailstorm and snow fall, therefore, the complainant intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.25,000/- per acre; that despite several request, the claim for damaged crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainant has suffered great financial losses. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, this complaint

2.                           On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, maintainability and suppression of material facts etc. It has been further submitted that as per the complainant, his land is situated at village Bhuthan Kalan but due to typographic mistake the village name has been uploaded as Bhuthan Khurd instead of Bhuthan Kalan, therefore, separate letters were sent to Op No.2/insurance company for rectifying the mistake qua the name of village, therefore, the insurance company being insurer is liable to indemnify the loss of crop, if any caused to farmer. However, the complainant has not given any intimation within 48 hours from the date of alleged crop loss. Other contentions have also been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          OP No.2 in its reply has raise preliminary objections that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of cotton crop has been affected in Village Bhuthan Kalan  but regarding this no intimation was ever given to it; that as per record, provided by the bank, the crop of cotton standing on the land of the farmer situated at village Bhuthan Khurd was insured but as per the complainant the crop standing on land situated in village Bhuthan Kalan was insured, therefore, 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. There is no shortfall of yield in the above notified area. The complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of cotton crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in the 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 had actually occurred.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of reply OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.                        

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jai Singh, Legal Officer Annexure R4 and documents Annexure-R5 to Annexure R9, whereas OP No.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Pawan Kumar, Branch Manager Annexure R1 and documents Annexure R2 and Annexure R3. Thereafter the evidence on behalf of the Ops was closed.

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

8.                          Undisputedly, the insurance premium for insuring the cotton crop of the complainant was debited by the Op No.1 and was remitted to Op No.2. However, the insurance company has come with the plea that the crop sown at village Bhuthan Kalan, for which the claim has been sought by the complainant, was not insured because as per the record of the bank/Op no.1 the land of village Bhuthan Khurd was insured. The complainant has not placed any document on the case file showing that he had ever given any intimation to the Ops with regard to crop loss as per operational guidelines, therefore, in the absence of any intimation, survey of the land in question could not be got conducted, hence, the localized claim is not payable to  the complainant. On the other hand, the Op No.1/bank has submitted that report with regard to necessary miscellaneous correction was sent to the insurance company vide Annexure R2 and Annexure R3.  There are sufficient material available on the case file to show that the Op No.2 (insurance company) is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice and the Op No.1/bank is also found negligent in sending the wrong name of the village to the insurance company. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.2 (insurance company) only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainant for Kharif 2017. Perusal of documents/correspondence placed on file as Annexure C1, Annexure C2 and  Annexure C3 are of dated 03.08.2018 and 14.02.2018 sent/made by the bank/OP No.1 to the insurance company and concerned department for correction in the name of village  but this plea is also not helpful to the case of Op No.1/bank as all the proceedings were made after suffering the loss by the complainant on account of damaging of crop.

9.                          The Agriculture Department has assessed the crop loss in village Bhuthan Kalan to tune of Rs.38587/- per hectare where the land of complainant falls and as per record the land details of the complainant is 1.478 hectare (Annexure R2).   

10.                        Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.57031/- (in round figure) 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 Bhuthan Kalan while negligently, the officials of bank/OP No.1 have given wrong name of the area to be Bhuthan Khurd.  So, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank/OP No.1 which shall be paid to the complainant.  The name of village be corrected in the record.           

11.                        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 Commission.                                                                 Dated: 06.07.2023

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                         (Harisha Mehta)                      (Rajbir Singh)                              Member                                  Member                                         President