Haryana

Kaithal

170/20

Mam Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Davinder Gorsi

21 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No.  170 of 2020.

                                                               Date of institution:    24.06.2020.

                                                               Date of decision:       21.12.2023.

 

Mam Chand s/o Shri Kishan Singh (since deceased) now represented by:-

1. Smt. Sharda widow of late Shri Mam Chand,
2. Ashok Kumar s/o late Shri Mam Chand,
3. Partap Singh s/o late Shri Mam Chand,
4. Shashi Bala daughter of late Shri Mam Chand,
5. Upasana daughter of late Shri Mam Chand.

 

All residents of village Pharal, District Kaithal.

 

                                                                             …Complainants.

                                                  Versus

 

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

… Opposite Parties

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

                                                                                                ...Performa Opposite Party.

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

 

                  

Present:       Shri Davinder Gorsi, Adv. for the complainants.   

                   Shri O.P. Gulati, Adv. for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. for Opposite Party No.2.

                   Shri Sunil, PO, Rep. for Opposite Party No.3.

                  

ORDER - NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant (since deceased) is an agriculturist by profession and owned 44 KANAL 5 MARLAS 5½ acres of land situated in village Pharal. He has a KCC Account bearing No.2052841000297 with OP No.1, who deducted Rs.3263.40 and Rs.1769.46 as  premium amount for khariff 2018 and rabi 2019 from his said account under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (for short “PMFBY”). He sown paddy crop in khariff season 2018, but due to untimely heavy rainfall in the area, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined due to rainwater lodging. He reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected his fields along with officials of OP No.2 and took the photographs of fields and assessed 60-65% damage of his paddy crop. After waiting sufficiently, he met with OPs to pay the claim amount, but all in vain. The above act of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared before this Commission and filed their respective written statements

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement submitted that to implement the PMFBY scheme, premium amount of Rs.3263.40 was debited from the account of complainant on 13.07.2018 for khariff 2018 and later on consolidated premium of Rs.1477588.86 including premium of complainant, was remitted in the account of OP No.2 on 31.07.2018.

5.                OP No.2, in its written statement stated raised preliminary objections regarding No coverage of alleged loss; General Exclusions; Not maintainable for want of jurisdiction; Non intimation; Non submission of proof of loss or weather report; Limited Coverage as per scheme; Privity of Contract; Impleading of Necessary Parties; Complicated facts and law of contract; Right to file Amended reply etc. It is further submitted on merits that in the present complaint, complainant is claiming for paddy crop of village Pharal. As per yield data of village Pharal, provided by Government, actual yield is more than the threshold yield. So, the complainant was/is not entitled for yield loss as per terms and conditions of the scheme.

6.                OP No.3, in its written statement stated that field of complainant and other farmers were inspected by the officials of OP No.3 randomly at village level and survey report was prepared as per spot inspection.

7.                However, it is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of present complaint, complainant is stated to be died, as such, his legal heirs are impleaded as party in the present complaint.  

8.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8.

9.                On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Annexure R-9 to Annexure R-16. OP No.2, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure R-5 to Annexure R-8. OP No.3, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4.

10.              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

11.              Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant (since deceased) is an agriculturist by profession and owned 44 KANAL 5 MARLAS 5½ acres of land situated in village Pharal. He further argued that the complainant has a KCC Account bearing No.2052841000297 with OP No.1, who deducted Rs.3263.40 and Rs.1769.46 as  premium amount for  khariff 2018 and rabi 2019 from his said account under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (for short “PMFBY”). He further argued that the complainant sown paddy crop in khariff season 2018, but due to untimely heavy rainfall in the area, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined due to rainwater lodging. He further argued that the complainant reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected his fields along with officials of OP No.2 and took the photographs of fields and assessed 60-65% damage of his paddy crop. He further argued that after waiting sufficiently, the complainant met with OPs to pay the claim amount, but all in vain. The above act of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part.

12.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that to implement the PMFBY scheme, premium amount of Rs.3263.40 was debited from the account of complainant on 13.07.2018 for khariff 2018 and later on consolidated premium of Rs.1477588.86 including premium of complainant, was remitted in the account of OP No.2 on 31.07.2018.

13.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that in the present complaint, complainant is claiming for paddy crop of village Pharal. As per yield data of village Pharal, provided by Government, actual yield is more than the threshold yield. So, the complainant was/is not entitled for yield loss as per terms and conditions of the scheme.

14.              There is no dispute that the complainant (since deceased) is an agriculturist and having a bank account with OP No.1 bank bearing account No.2052841000297, who deducted Rs.3263.40 on 13.07.2018, from the said account, on account of premium for ‘PMFBY’, as is evident from Statement of Account Annexure C-2. 

15.              The grievance of the complainant is that he sown paddy crop in khariff season 2018, but due to heavy rainfall, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined, due to rainwater lodging and he reported the matter to OP No.3, who inspected his fields along with officials of OP No.2 and assessed 60-65% damage to his paddy crop, but the OPs failed to release the said claim amount, to him, despite repeated requests made by him.

16.              On the other hand, OP No.1 bank has admitted about debiting the amount of Rs.3263.40 for khariff 2018, from the account of complainant on 13.07.2018 and later on consolidated premium of Rs.1477588.86 including premium of complainant, was remitted in the account of OP No.2 on 31.07.2018, as is evident from document Annexure R-12.

17.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for OP No.2 has simply contended that in the present complaint, complainant is claiming for paddy crop of village Pharal. As per yield data of village Pharal, provided by Government, actual yield is more than the threshold yield, so, complainant is not entitled for yield loss as per terms and conditions of the scheme. But this contention of the learned counsel for OP No.2, has no force, because, as per report Annexure R-1, produced by OP No.3 Agriculture Department, claim based on Localized Survey of complainant comes to Rs.9884.16 per acre. Since OP No.2 has duly received and accepted the premium amount for khariff 2018 of complainant, through OP No.1, therefore, OP No.2 is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant, for any loss suffered to his khariff crop, under the said scheme. In the present case, crops of complainant was destroyed and he demanded the claim amount, as per PMFBY scheme from OP No.2, then it refused to pay the same, on this flimsy ground, which amounts to gross 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, to the complainant, for the loss, suffered by the complainant, due to destruction/damage of his crop.

18.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? As per Annexure R-1, the Agriculture Department has assessed the based on Localized Survey to the tune of Rs.9884.16 per acre. In the complaint, complainant alleged that he suffered loss in his 5½ acres of land and this fact is established from jamabandhi for the year 2014-15, produced by the complainant on the case file as Annexure C-1. Hence, for 5½ acre loss, the LRs of complainant are entitled for the total amount of Rs.54362.88 (Rs.9884.15 x 5½ acre), which shall be paid, by OP No.2, to the complainant along with compensation amount + litigation expenses.          

19.              Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.54362.88, along with compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, to the LRs of complainant, within 45 days, from today, failing which, the award amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization. Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.     

20.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings 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 records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:21.12.2023.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

                                                (Suman Rana).              

                                                Member.

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Lal, Stenographer.