Haryana

Kaithal

271/20

Birmati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.S Kundu

10 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.271 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 01.09.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:10.02.2023.

Birmati wife of Sh. Satbir son of Sh. Kali Ram, r/o VPO Sega, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Canara bank, Branch Office at Chhatrawas Road, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company, Dhand Road, near IDBI Bank, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

….Respondents.

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

..Performa Respt.

 

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. S.S.Kundu, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Dinesh Kumar Dhull, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

                Sh. M.R.Miglani, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

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

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Birmati-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (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 16 Kanal 4 Marla (2½ acre) of agriculture land situated at Village Sega Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has a KCC account No.2045841000398 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant of Kharif (paddy) 2018 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.1487.50 paise as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in the month of September/October, 2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant reported the matter to the respondent No.3 and the officials of respondents No.3 in return inspected the agriculture fields of complainant and assessed 30%-40% damage of paddy crop of complainant.  The complainant has suffered a loss of approximately Rs.40,000/- i.e. Rs.15,000/- per acre.  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; to implement the scheme of PMFBY, premium amount of Rs.1487.50 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 18.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018 and such premium amount was remitted to insurance company-respondent No.2 in their account of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. alongwith alongwith premium amount of other farmers also, hence deficiency if any is on the part of respondent No.2.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct.  As per survey report, the claim of complainant has not been made on threshed yield basis.  The complainant has not filed any individual application for assessing his loss, so no claim is made out on the threshed hold basis and present complaint is not maintainable; 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; 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 respondent.  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 loss was assessed 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-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, 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 document Annexure-R4 and respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith document Annexure-R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5379.26 paise per acre.  Hence, for 2½ acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.13,448/- (Rs.5379.26 paise x 2½ acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.13,448/- 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.5500/- 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.:10.02.2023.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),           

                        Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.