Haryana

Kaithal

99/21

Gurudyal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajesh Bhardwaj

11 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.99/2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 05.04.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:11.09.2023.

Gurdayal Singh @ Dyal S/o Kali Ram r/o Village Jaswanti, Nauch, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Chief Manager, Canara Bank (Main Branch), Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Mahila Ashram Complex Behind Bus Stand, Karnal-132001.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department, Kaithal, Office at Room NO.305, Secretariat, Kaithal.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. R.K.Nagpal, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

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

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, G.P. for the OP No.3.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

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

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and owned agriculture land measuring 106 Kanal 05 Marla, as detailed mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint,  situated in Village Balwanti, Distt. Kaithal.  The complainant has an account No.2045841000289 with the OP No.1.  The OP 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 OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.7353.72 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 in that area on 23/24.09.2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OPs and the OP No.3,  inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant and assured the complainant that the complainant will get his insurance amount earliest possible.  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.     

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  OP No.1 filed the written version 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.7353.72 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 18.07.2018 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.2, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

4.             OP No.2 filed the written version mentioning therein that the 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.  In the present complaint, the complainant is allegedly claiming for kharif crops of Village Jaswanti which was allegedly insured through OP No.1-bank.  In fact as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Agricultural Department (Haryana Govt.), the actual yield is more than the threshold yield (Actual yield is 2570.19 & threshold yield is 2553.3 and yield loss percentage is Nil), hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company.  However, as regards localized claim, the yield loss is nil, hence, the complainant is also not entitled for the localized claim.  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.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering OP.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             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

6.             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.

7.             On the other hand, the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3, OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R12 and OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R13 to Annexure-R20 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

9.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has an account No.2045841000289 with the OP No.1.  The OP 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 OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.7353.72 paise on 18.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in that area on 23/24.09.2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  It is further argued that the complainant instantly reported the matter to OPs and the OP No.3, inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant and assured the complainant that the complainant will get his insurance amount earliest possible.  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.

10.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has argued that the premium amount of Rs.7353.72 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 18.07.2018 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.2, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any. 

11.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-Insurance Company has argued that as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Agricultural Department (Haryana Govt.), the actual yield is more than the threshold yield (Actual yield is 2570.19 & threshold yield is 2553.3 and yield loss percentage is Nil), hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company.  However, as regards localized claim, the yield loss is nil, hence, the complainant is also not entitled for the localized claim.  .     

12.            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.  He has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT at the time of arguments, which is Mark-A on the file.   

13.            As per pleadings, it is mentioned that the complainant is having and cultivating the land 106 Kanal 5 Marla.  In this regard, query was made to representative of OP No.3-Agriculture Department, who has stated that premium amount of Rs.595/- was assessed per acre in the year 2018, so, in this way, the land comes as 12.36 acre (Rs.7353.72 paise÷Rs.595/-).  So far 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”.  

14.            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, if any, to the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his crop.

15.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6652.80 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 12.36 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.82,229/- (Rs.6652.80 paise x 12.36 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Insurance Company.        

16.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.82,229/- 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-insrance company and dismissed against OPs No.1 & 3.     

17.            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.:11.09.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.