Haryana

Kaithal

91/21

Suman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajesh Bhardwaj

05 Sep 2023

ORDER

                    

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.91/2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 05.04.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:05.09.2023.

Suman W/o Amir Singh @ Amar Singh 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

        Suman-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 11 Kanal 02 Marla, as detailed mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint,  situated in Village Jaswanti, Distt. Kaithal.  The complainant has an account No.2045841000549 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.818.32 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.818.32 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 4170.21 & threshold yield is 2553.3 and yield loss percentage is Nil), hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company.  However, as regards localized claim, a sum of Rs.8943/- has already been paid to the complainant and nothing more is to be paid now.  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-R14 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 the complainant has an account No.2045841000549 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.818.32 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.818.32 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 in the present case, 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 4170.21 & threshold yield is 2553.3 and yield loss percentage is Nil), hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company.  However, as regards localized claim, a sum of Rs.8943/- has already been paid to the complainant and nothing more is to be paid now..        

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.            In the present case, insured land is 1 acre 3 kanal as is clear from the mortgage deed as per Annexure-R18.  The Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6652.80 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.6652.80 paise for 1 acre+Rs.2495/- for 3 kanal loss which becomes the total amounting to Rs.9148/-.  It is clear from the statement of account as per Annexure-R14 that the amount of Rs.8943/- has already been paid to the complainant as per bank entry dt. 14.03.2019.  So, no claim is outstanding against the OPs.  Nothing more to be adjudicated in the present complaint.  Hence, this case is disposed of accordingly.  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.:05.09.2023.

 

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

                               

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.