BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.62 of 2018.
Date of institution: 12.02.2018.
Date of decision:10.04.2019.
Tejinder Singh son of Sh. Atma Singh, r/o VPO Sihu Majra, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kaithal Road, Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, SCO No.145 to 148, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
….Opposite parties.
- Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No.103, Secretariat, Kaithal.
..Performa opposite party.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. C.S.Ahulwalia, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the OP.No.1.
Sh. C.L.Uppal, Adv. for the Op No.2.
Sh. Balkar Singh, Auth. Representative for Op No.3.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned 2 acre of agriculture land situated at Village Sihu Majra, Distt. Kaithal. It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.3565224653 with the Op No.1 and the Op No.1 had insured the crop of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2016-17 with the Op No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.1023/- on 30.12.2016. It is further alleged that in Rabi Season of 2016 the complainant had sown wheat crop upon these agriculture land but due to untimely heavy rainfall, the wheat crop of complainant was damaged/ruined due to “Rainwater lodging”. The complainant reported the matter to Op No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural field of complainant and assessed 90% damage of wheat crop. The complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.2 but the Op No.2 did not settle the claim of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately. Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; the scheme of “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” was introduced by Govt. of India and is being implemented by Govt. of Haryana, hence, Govt. of India and State of Haryana are necessary parties for just decision of the complaint; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the amount of premium in the sum of Rs.2,97,657/- alongwith list of loanee farmers (Including the complainant) was paid to Op No.2 on 16.01.2017 through RTGS for coverage of Rabi crops during the year 2016-17 and surprisingly now after expiry of statutory period of insurance, the Op No.2 wants to refund the premium after a long gap of 1-1½ years and for this purpose had sent repeated mails to answering Op, hence deficiency if any is on the part of Op No.2; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections that the crop of complainant was not insured under crop season, 2016 for “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” in District Kaithal of Haryana State as per record of insurance company and present complaint lacks for privity of contract which does not fall under definition of consumer disputes in absence of any contract of insurance and consideration; that as per Operational Guidelines, the bank has to mandatory submit premium to the insurance company alongwith declaration form of the farmers but declaration form of farmer having details of insured unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area of insured of farmer etc. were never supplied by concerned bank and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for mistake done by bank or complainant himself. It is settled proposition of law that contract of insurance cannot be booked unless details of insurance is submitted to insurance company. Moreover, it was the duty of bank to submit requisite details of farmer alongwith premium for the purpose of booking of insurance contract in the record of insurance company; that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum because the complainant has approached this Forum with bad intention even without approaching to grievance cell of Govt. agencies as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint
4. Op No.3 filed the reply stating therein that the complainant approached the Op No.3 on 11.03.2017 for claim compensation of his so-called insured wheat crop affected due to heavy rain and the same has been transmitted to Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. on 11.03.2017 and surveyed has conducted by Agriculture Department as per the instructions of notification of Govt. of Haryana Operational Guidelines of “Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna”. The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-CA to Annexure-CG and thereafter, closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1, the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence. Op No.3 did not produce any evidence, so, the evidence of Op No.3 was closed vide court order dt. 09.01.2019.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
8. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant has an account No.3565224653 with the Op No.1 and the Op No.1 had insured the crop of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2016-17 with the Op No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.1023/- on 30.12.2016, as is clear from the statement of account Annexure-CB and paid the same to the OP No.2 towards PMFBY. According to the complainant, his wheat crop was damaged due to ‘Rainwater lodging’. Intimation regarding loss was given to the Op No.3 on 10.03.2017 as is clear from Annexure CC and on the backside of said Annexure-CC, it is admitted by the Agriculture Department that the date of receipt of intimation was 11.03.2017. The committee of Agriculture Department inspected the fields of complainant and assessed the loss. The complainant requested many times to OPs to make the compensation/claim/insured payment of his wheat crops, but the OPs denied his claim as mentioned in Annexure CF on the remarks as under:-
“The said KCC account numbers are not traceable in RABI-2016 insured database. Importantly, it is submitted that RGICL did not receive any such remittance from CBI, Cheeka branch which was remitted alongwith complete insured documents within stipulated time lines. The aforesaid remittance with UTR no.CBINH17016155433 was not booked for policy under PMFBY as the concerned bank CBI, Cheeka did not contact IC for any such documentation for policy booking. You may guide the complainant farmers to contact their concerned bank branch CBI, Cheeka for the resolution of the same”.
Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant lodged a complaint with the Op No.3 against the grievance faced by the complainant. The enquiry of this complaint was done by the Op No.3 and from enquiry, the complainant transpired that the Op No.2 did not pass the claim as the complainant having bank name and address namely OBC Cheeka is not traceable in RABI-2016 insured database, which is against the operating guidelines of PMEBY, relevant record of enquiry is Annexure C to Annexure F.
9. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Op No.2 contended that as per Operational Guidelines, the bank has to mandatory submit premium to the insurance company alongwith declaration form of the farmers but declaration form of farmer having details of insured unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area of insured of farmer etc. were never supplied by concerned bank and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for mistake done by bank or complainant himself.
10. We have perused the document Ex.R1 where from it is clear that a list of 346 farmers including the complainant was sent by the Op No.1 to Op No.2 and on the said document, it is mentioned that the amount of premium in the sum of Rs.2,97,657/- alongwith list of loanee farmers (Including the complainant) was paid by the Op No.1 to Op No.2 on 16.01.2017 through NEFT vide UTR No.CBINH17016155433. Moreover, the Op No.2 gave notice to Op No.1 on 25.01.2018, as is clear from Annexure CF, whereas the loss of complainant was occurred on 10.03.2017. So, it is clear that the Op No.2 gave the notice after the loss of complainant. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 rather it is Op No.2, who has adopted the unfair trade practice and is deficient while rendering services to the complainant. So far the loss is concerned, the crop in 1.5 hectare of land of the complainant was insured for Rs.82,500/- (per acre). One hectare is=2.47105 acre, so 1.5 hectare is equal to approximately 3.7 acres and so, loss comes to approximately Rs.22,000/- per acre. We have perused the loss assessment report, Annexure CG wherein the committee has assessed the loss about 50-60% in 2 acres. In this way, the complainant is entitled for Rs.11,000/- per acre (Rs.22,000x50%) and the total loss comes to Rs.22,000/- (Rs.11,000/-x 2 acre).
11. Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint against the Op No.2 and direct the OP No.2 to pay Rs.22,000/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP No.2 to pay Rs.2200/- as lump sum compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. for the defaulted period. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:10.04.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
