Haryana

Kaithal

253/21

Balraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Corporation Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kirpal Singh

05 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                        Complaint No.: 253 of 2021.

                                                        Date of institution: 08.10.2021.

                                                        Date of decision:05.06.2023.

 

Balraj son of Sh. Jagar resident of Village Mataur, Tehsil, Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. The Manager, Corporation Bank, Kalayat, District, Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.   
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal office at Room No. 305, Secretariat, Kaithal.                                                           
   •  

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection, Act

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.   

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.                  

 

Present:     Shri Kirpal Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

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

                Shri P.P. Kaushik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

Shri Pushpinder Saini, Govt. Pleader for the Opposite Party No.3.

 

ORDER

 

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

1.             Balraj Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereifafter referred to as the Act) against the respondents.

2.             It is alleged in the complaint that complainant is permanent resident of village Mataur, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal and having 2.6  Acre ( 22 Kanal and 7 Marla) of land in that village. He was also having its account with OP No.1 bearing No.560381003671988. He sown Kharif crop (Paddy) in the season of 2018 in his said 2.6 acres land and got insured the same under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) from OP No.2 through OP No.1 and the premium an amount of Rs.1,657.95/- was paid to OP No.2 through OP No.1 on 26.07.2018. There were heavy rains in the area on 23/24.09.2018 the period, due to which, his standing crops was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OP No. 3 and concerned official of OP No. 3 alongwith officials of OP No. 2 visited the flood affected area and took photographs of field and assessed the damage of paddy crop of 2.6 acres of land to the tune of 50%. He visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but they failed to release the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

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

4.             OP No.1, in its written statement specifically stated that he has no role about issuance of Crop insurance policy or about processing and adjudication of insurance claim pertaining to present complaint. It is stated that as per Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) and notification dated 17.06.2016 issued by Government of Haryana bearing memo No. 3009/Agri.II (I)-2016/10854 and notification bearing memo No. 941-Agri-II (I) 2018/4332 dated 30.03.2018 crops were require to be covered under this PMFBY, Scheme compulsorily. It is further submitted that as per PMFBY, Scheme the bank debited from respective KCC account of complainant on 26.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018 amounting to Rs.1657.95/- and as such premium amount was transfer to OP No. 2 in their account No. 0248002100026568. There is no deficiency in service on their part, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

5.             OP No.2, in its written statement that as per averments of the complaint the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Mataur District Kaithal due to the reason for loss mentioned as Heavy Rain Fall which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY), Scheme and no documentary proof of alleged loss has been annexed with the complaint to prove the same. It is stated that as per guidelines of scheme immediate intimation was to be given within 48 hours but complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss  of crop in Village Mataur within stipulated period.  There is no deficiency in service on their part, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them. On merits, it is stated that as per yield data of Village Mataur provided by Govt., actual yield is less than the threshold yield.  So, the complainant was entitled for yield loss amounting to Rs.1666/- and the same was paid to OP No.1-bank vide UTR No.4919020133079 on 31.0.2019 as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  Now, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed under localized claim.  Moreover, under localized based claim, complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to answering OP within stipulated period of 48 hours of alleged loss to process the claim as per terms and conditions of the scheme and prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

6.             The OP No.3, in its written statement 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 respondent randomly on the basis of village level. The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

7.             The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents annexure C-1 to annexure C-3 and closed his evidence.

8.             On the other hand, OP No.1, in order to support its case, tendered affidavit EX.RW1/A along with documents annexure R-5 to annexure R14 and closed its evidence. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents annexure R3 and annexure R4 closed the same. The OP No.3, in support of its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents annexure R1 and annexure R2 closed its evidence.

9.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

10.            Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is permanent resident of village Mataur, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal and having 2.6  Acre ( 22 Kanal and 7 Marla) of land in that village. He was also having its account with OP No.1 bearing No.560381003671988. He sown Kharif crop (Paddy) in the season of 2018 in his said 2.6 acres land and got insured the same under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) from OP No.2 through OP No.1 and the premium an amount of Rs.1,657.95/- was paid to OP No.2 through OP No.1 on 26.07.2018. There were heavy rains in the area on 23/24.09.2018 the period, due to which, his standing crops was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OP No. 3 thereafter concerned official of OP No. 3 alongwith officials of OP No. 2 visited the flood affected area and took photographs of field and assessed the damage of paddy crop of 2.6 acres of land to the tune of 50%. He received an amount of Rs. 1,666.36/- dated 02.07.2019 from opposite parties for his damage crops but he is not satisfied with us. He visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but they failed to release the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Puran & others, decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 19.12.2019 reported in 2021(2) CLT 171 and General Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Nain Singh and others decided by Himachal Prasdesh State Commission on 05.03.2008 reported in 2008(3) CPJ 165. 

11.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that as per PMFBY, Scheme the bank debited from respective KCC account of complainant on 26.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018 amounting to Rs.1657.95/- and as such premium amount was transfer to OP No. 2 in their account No. 0248002100026568.

12.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that as per yield data of Village Mataur provided by Govt., actual yield is less than the threshold yield.  So, the complainant was entitled for yield loss amounting to Rs.1666/- and the same was paid to OP No.1-bank vide UTR No.4919020133079 on 31.0.2019 as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  Now, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed under localized claim.  It is further argued that under localized based claim, complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to answering OP within stipulated period of 48 hours of alleged loss to process the claim as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  

13.            Sh. Pushkar Saini, GP for the OP No.3 has argued that no intimation was given by the complainant to the Agriculture Department, so, complainant is not entitled for claim based on Localized Survey.

14.            The objection raised by ld. counsel for the OP No.3 is that intimation regarding loss was not given by the complainant.  To rebut the said contention, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the law laid down in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Puran etc. (supra), wherein it is held by Hon’ble National Commission that “Plea of insurance company that no privity of contract between petitioner and complainants and no intimation of loss given-Admittedly, premium for crop insurance came to be paid from accounts of complainant-Therefore, it cannot be said that complainants are not consumers of petitioner company-Further, in view of alleged failure to intimate loss to insurer, written version filed by State Bank of India before District Forum shows that scheme did not envisage any such intimation-Therefore, revision petitions dismissed with liberty to petitioner company to avail such remedy as may be open to it in law against concerned Govt.”  The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case as the premium of Rs.1657.95 paise was deducted by the OP No.1-bank from the account of complainant under the PMFBY scheme.  So, the contention of OP No.3 that no intimation was given has no force.  Hence, he is entitled for loss occurred in 2.78 acre as insured land.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8078.40 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 2.78 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.22,458/- (Rs.8078.40 paise x 2.78  acre).  As per Annexure-R7, the amount of Rs.1666.36/- have already been paid by the insurance company to the complainant as stated by Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Adv. for the OP No.2 which is also admitted by the complainant.  Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.1666.36/- from the total compensation amount of Rs.22,458/-, remaining amount of Rs.20,792/- shall be paid by the OP No.2-insurance company to the complainant.       

15.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.20,792/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  The OP No.2-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against OP No.2-insurance company and dismissed against Ops No.1 & 3.        

16.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP No.2-insurance company 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 Commission:

Dated: 05.06.2023.     

    

 

                                                                                    

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.