Haryana

Kaithal

230/20

Kishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Devender Gorsi

20 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.230 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 04.08.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:20.12.2022.

Kishan Singh son of Sh. Munshi Singh, R/o Village Pharal, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, Canara Bank, Pharal, Tehsil Pharal, Distt. Kaithal.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Divisional Manager.

….Respondents.

3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal, Office at Secretariat, Kaithal.

..Performa Respt.

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Devender Gorsi, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, 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

        Kishan Singh-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 by share of about 4½ acre of agriculture land situated at Village Pharal Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has a KCC account No.20528410000896 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant of Kharif (paddy) 2018 and Rabi 2019 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amounts of Rs.2675.40 paise and Rs.1880.55 paise respectively 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 60% to 65% damage of paddy crop of 4½ acres of land.  The complainant has suffered a loss of approximately Rs.1,12,500/- i.e. Rs.25,000/- 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; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the premium amount qua kharif 2018 crop was debited from KCC account of complainant on 13.07.2018 amounting to Rs.2675.40 paise and lateron, consolidated premium amount of Rs.1477588.86 paise, which also includes the aforesaid premium amount of Rs.2675.40 paise was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account on 31.07.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Alongwith above-said cumulative crop insurance premium amount of Rs.1477588.86/- (which also includes the premium debited from account of present complainant) of Khariff, 2018 crops sent electronically to respondent No.2, consolidated data of different loanee farmers including that of present complainant of respondent No.1 bank containing information like declaration, premium debited, farmer’s name, father’s name, bank account number, aadhaar number, village, categories-Small and Marginal/SC/ST/Women, insured acreage, details of insured land, sum insured crop(s) etc. were uploaded on PMFBY portal as prescribed in online application form available on National Crop Insurance Portal within stipulated cut-off date and also given to respondent No.2 before cut off date, hence deficiency if any is on the part of respondent No.2.  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 averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Pharal, 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; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop; that apart from non-submission of claim, the complainant has also not supplied any proof for loss or whether index report of Metrological Department of India in support of claim which establishes that the alleged loss of crop had never occurred in the area.  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-C8 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 documents Annexure-R4 to Annexure-R11 and respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith document Annexure-R12 & Annexure-R13 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the respondent No.1-bank has stated that the Agriculture Department has wrongly mentioned the area to be 5 acre, whereas in complaint in para No.2 of the complaint, the complainant has stated that he is owner of 4.5 acre land.  He has further stated that as per Annexure-R5 & Annexure-R11, the land is 4.5 acres.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9884.16 paise per acre.  Hence, for 4.5 acre, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.44,479/- (Rs.9884.16 paise x 4.5 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.44,479/- 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.:20.12.2022.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.