Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/308/2018

Subhash Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh

17 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.308 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.:  01.10.2018.                                                                        Date of Decision: 17.04.2023

Subash Chander son of Sahi Ram resident of village Dhanger, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Central Bank of India, Branch G.T.Road, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabd through its Branch Manager.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.156-159, Sector  9-C, Madhya  Marg, Chandigarh through its Authorised signatory.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                         Sh.Rakesh Kharbas, Advocate for complainant.                                         Sh.M.K.Dharnia, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                    Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.2. 

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  SH.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                  

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is owner in possession of land situated at village Dhanger Tehsil & District Fatehabad; that the complainant had sown cotton crops/kharif crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility with account No.3234894319; that the complainant got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.2 on  26.07.2017 and in this regard an amount of Rs.2304/- was debited from his account by Op No.1 as premium of the insurance in question, which was credited in the account of Op No.2; that the cotton crop of the complainant got damaged;  that that despite serving of legal notice as well as many several requests and  the claim for damaged crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainant has suffered great financial losses. In the end, prayer has been made for allowing compensation for lost crops in sum of Rs.49,250/-. Rs.50,000/- have also been claimed towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.                                Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  In the reply filed on behalf of Op No.1 several preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, maintainability, jurisdiction and concealment of material facts have been taken. It has been further submitted that the complainant should have approached to DAC & FC Department for any kind of grievances related to the scheme or claim but the complainant has filed the present complaint by concealing the material facts; that an amount of Rs.2304/- on 26.07.2017 was debited from the bank account of the complainant for premium of cotton crops of 1.6693 hectare and was remitted to the OP No.2 vide UTR No.CBINH17212166819 on 31.07.2018 of Rs.1007976/- and CBINH 17213132634  on 01.08.2017 of Rs.700000 for premium of  PMFBY; that the complainant had not submitted his aadhar card to the bank despite repeated requests and the insurance company returned the amount to the bank is was deposited in the account of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of bank. Other contentions have also been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          Op No.2 filed its separate reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action and locus standi etc. It has been further averred that the present complaint before this Commission is not maintainable because  except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalised by government agencies and  the complainant should have approached DAC & FW Department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and decision of said department would have been binding on State Government/Insurance Company/Banks/farmers but instead of that the complainants had approached the District Consumer Commission (earlier Consumer Forum) with malafide intention by violating standard terms and conditions of the scheme. Further, the complainant had never given any intimation to the insurance company regarding any loss despite the fact that there is a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. It has been further averred that no proof of loss or weather report has been submitted with insurance company by the complainant and even quantification of loss cannot be determined in absence of necessary survey and there is no privity of contract between complainants and insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company.  Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.                             

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C9 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Sh.Jai Singh, Senior Executive Legal as Annexure R1 alongwith documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R4 and learned counsel for Op No.2 has tendered documents Annexure R5 to Annexure R10 on the case file. Thereafter, the evidence of the Ops was closed.

6.                          We have heard oral final arguments from both sides and perused the case file minutely.

7.                          The grievance of the complainant is that his cotton crop for the Khariff, 2017 season got damaged but he has not received any insurance claim till today. The complainant in order to prove his case, has placed on file copy of jamabandi for the year 2015-16 as Annexure C4 and copies of khasra girdwaris for the year 2017-2018 Annexure C5. The complainant has also placed on record copy of statement of account Annexure C3, from which it is proved on record that on 26.07.2017, an amount of Rs.2304/- was deducted from his account by op no.1 as insurance premium for insuring the cotton crop of kharif 2017 with op no.2. 

8.                          OP No.1 in its written statement an amount of Rs.2304/- on 26.07.2017 was debited from the bank account of the complainant for premium of cotton crops of 1.6693 hectare and was remitted to the OP No.2 vide UTR No.CBINH17212166819 on 31.07.2018 of Rs.1007976/- and CBINH 17213132634  on 01.08.2017 of Rs.700000 for premium of  PMFBY and when the complainant did not submit his aadhar card to the bank despite repeated requests and the insurance company returned the amount to the bank is was deposited in the account of the complainant.  

9.                          The complainant has alleged that his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 season was damaged and the concerned department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.52009.06 per hectare in village Dhanger for loss of cotton crop as is evident in Annexure C7.  

10.                        Undisputedly, the insurance company had accepted the payment qua insurance premium of crop and kept the same with it for a longer period of more than 12 months and further returned the same when the insured crop had already been reportedly damaged, meaning thereby that op no.2 had accepted the premium without any objection and now when the damage to the crop of complainant has been caused, then op no.2 arbitrarily and illegally denying to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. So, the OP no.2 is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.2 only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainant for Kharif 2017 season and op no.1 is not found responsible in this regard. There is nothing on the file to show that the complainant had ever intimated about the loss to the Ops within stipulated period as per the guidelines of the government with regard to loss of crop, therefore, localized claim has been rejected.                        

11.                        Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant has suffered loss of sown crop in 1.6693 hectare and the concerned Agriculture Department in the report dated 04.06.2019 has assessed the yield loss to the tune of Rs.52009.06 per hectare, therefore, it would be just and proper to give compensation to the complainant as assessed by the concerned agriculture department in its report.

12.                        Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against OP No.2 with a direction as follows:

(1)                        To pay an amount of Rs.86819/- (in round figure) as insurance claim amount on account of yield loss  to the complainant for the damages of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017, sown by him in 1.6693 hectare.

(2)                        To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rs.Eleven Thousand) towards compensation for harassment and mental agony etc. suffered by the complainant as well as for litigation expenses.

                             The amount mentioned at Sr. No. (1) would carry simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the compliant till actual payment.  The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the entire amount mentioned at Sr. Nos. (1) & (2) above would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, no deficiency is found on the part of OP no. 1, therefore, complaint against Op No.1 stands dismissed.  However, the Op No.2 is directed to make the payment of awarded amount after deducting the amount of premium which was returned and credited in the account of the complainant on 26.08.2018.

13.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents 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. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 17.04.2023

 

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                       (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                              Member                               Member                                             President