BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 300 of 2019
Date of Institution : 13.11.2019
Date of Decision : 09.08.2022
1. Ranbir 2. Surat Singh @ Sartal 3. Rajmal @ Raj Singh 4. Ram Niwas sons of Dhanpat Singh R/o village Garhwali Tehsil Julana, District Jind.
.….Complainants
Versus
- HDFC Bank Ltd. near Purani Anaj Mandi Gate, Julana, District Jind.
- SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office: “Natraj” 101, 201 & 301 Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla-Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069 through its Managing Director/authorized person.
- State of Haryana through Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Jind.
……Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM: SH. MUKESH BANSAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT. NEERU AGARWAL, MEMBER.
SH. G.D. GOYAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. Kamal Rai Sharma, learned counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, learned counsel for OP No.2.
Sh. Navneet Kumar, Assistant Statistical Officer on behalf of OP No. 3.
ORDER
The facts giving rise to the present complaint are that complainants are owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 76 kanal 5 marlas and further 10 kanals 18 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Garhwali as per jamabandi for the year 2015-2016 in equal shares. Complainants are maintaining a joint bank account No.50200005611271 with OP No.1 bank and availed crop loan from the said bank. Paddy crop of complainant was got insured from OP No.2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yajna through Op No.1 by deducting premium of Rs.6423/- on 02.07.2018 from the said bank account. Complainant has pleaded that his 8 acres paddy crops got totally damaged due to inundation on 29.07.2018. Information in this regard was given to OP insurance company as well as Agriculture Department on 30.07.2018 by the complainants. Upon which, a sample survey was conducted in the village and assessed loss to the paddy to the extent of 75.5%. Complainants have submitted that they suffered loss of paddy yield in 8 acres @ 20 quintals per acre which comes to a total of 160 quintals and thus a monetary loss of Rs.5,60,000/-. Complainants submitted that they approached several times to the Ops and requested to pay compensation on account of loss of insured crop but the Ops avoided the same on one pretext or the other and insurance company did not pay claim of damaged crop. The complainants have alleged that the OP No.2 insurance company is not paying their lawful claim without any rhyme or reason which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred seeking relief as per prayer clause.
2. Upon notice, Ops appeared and tendered their separate replies.
OP No.1 filed reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous. On merits, it is stated that the complainants are maintaining joint bank account with the answering OP and availed crop loan from it. Crop of complainant was got insured by OP No.1 by deducting a premium of Rs.6423/- from the account of complainants and same was sent to the OP No.2 insurance company. It is pleaded that the answering OP has no liability to make payment of insurance amount to the complainant as the answering OP is only mediator between the complainants and insurance company as per Govt. instructions and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
OP No.2-insurance company opposed the claim of complainant by raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous. Further, that complainants never shared policy details and application number with the answering OP, therefore, was not able to trace out the claim or any grievance as per allegations in the complaint. The answering OP pleaded that the complainants may be directed for filing claim alongwith policy and application number so the OP insurance company can trace out the claim details. As such, the answering OP submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
OP No.3 filed reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed with malafide intention. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is denied that complainant is entitled to get any compensation.
3. In order to prove its case, learned counsel for the complainant placed on record affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexures C-1 to C-18 and closed the evidence.
In rebuttal, OP No.1 has filed document Annexure OP1/1 while OP No.2 placed on record affidavit of Sh. Arvind Singh Naruka, authorized signatory as Annexure OPW2/A. OP No.3 filed affidavit Annexure OPW3/A and the Ops closed their evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for complainants argued that due to heavy rains his paddy crop sown in 8 acre got flooded with water and damaged to the extent of 75.5%. The Ld. counsel argued that complainant suffered loss of Rs.5,60,000/- for the paddy crop but the OP insurance company did not pay any compensation. Further argued that the act & conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as harassment to the complainant.
On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that complainant never shared policy & application number with the answering OP, therefore, the OP insurance company could not trace the alleged claim/grievance of complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
Learned counsel for OP No.1 after deducting the premium amount sent the same to OP insurance company and thus the crop of complainant was insured with OP No.2. So, compensation, if any, is to be paid by the Op insurance company. The OP bank is only a mediator between complainant and the insurance company. As such, there was no deficiency in service on its part and argued for dismissal of complaint qua it.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of bank account of complainant (Annexure C-2), it emerges that the premium for crop insurance of complainant was deducted by the OP bank on 31.07.2018 and as per their pleadings it was sent to the OP insurance company. But as per OP insurance company, it has not received only premium from the OP bank, therefore, the crop of complainant was not insured with it and thus no question of paying any compensation to the complainant arises. It is mandatory under the PMFBY Notification that farmer availing loans from financial institutions (loanee farmers) for the notified crops would be covered compulsorily. In the present case, Op bank has admitted that complainant was availing cash credit limit from it under abovesaid bank account number and premium of Rs.6423/- was deducted from the said account of complainant for crop insurance. The OP bank has not placed on record any document which could show that the premium amount so deducted was remitted to the OP insurance company or that it had received the premium amount. Further, as per PMFBY guidelines “Insurance companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intimidators or directly. Any loss in transit due to negligence by these agencies or non-remittance of premium by these agencies, the concerned bank/intermediaries shall be liable for payment of claim. (2) If in case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such miss-reporting”. In view of this, the OP bank is hereby held liable to compensate the complainant for the crop loss.
As per intimation of crop loss (Annexure C-3, C-6, C-9 & C-14), and sample survey report (Annexure C-15), complainants have suffered loss to the paddy crop in 8 acres (2 acre each complainant) by 75.5%. To prove ownership over the land, complainant has placed on record copy of jamabandi Annexure C-16. The prevailing rate of sum insured for the paddy crop was Rs.28,935/- per acre. Therefore, calculating the actual loss to the paddy crop of complainants in 8 acre while assessing loss at 75.5% comes to Rs.1,74,767/-. Therefore, the complaint is allowed and the OP No.1 bank is directed to comply with the following directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order:-
(i) To pay Rs.1,74,767/- (Rs. One lac seventy four thousand seven hundred sixty seven) to the complainants in equal share alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till the date of actual realization. In case of default, the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till the actual realization.
(ii) And to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
- Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousand) as litigation expenses.
Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs, on usual terms. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced on:09.08.2022 (Mukesh Bansal) President
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer.
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(G.D.Goyal)
Member
CC No.300 of 2019
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. Kamal Rai Sharma, learned counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, learned counsel for OP No.2.
Sh. Navneet Kumar, Assistant Statistical Officer on behalf of OP No. 3.
Arguments concluded. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint has been allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced: 09.08.2022. Member Member President DCDRC, Jind
