BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 684 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 28.11.2019.
Date of Decision : 21.03.2024.
Bhagwan Dass (now deceased) son of Sh. Manphool Singh through his legal heir Purshotam aged 46 years son of Bhagwan Dass, resident of village Burj Bhangu, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank, Branch Office at SR Building, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager and Principal Officer.
2. Pardhan Matri Fasal Beema Yojna name of Insurance Company particulars of the Insurance are to be disclosed by the op no.1 bank ) and the same will be furnished accordingly by way of amendment of the title of the complaint) .
...…Opposite party (s).
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Dinesh Verma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party bank.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP) seeking insurance claim for the loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. Initially the present complaint was filed by complainant Bhagwan Dass and after his death his son Purshotam moved application seeking permission for pursing the present complaint on his behalf which was allowed and as such amended title has been filed.
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist having 62 kanals 13 marlas of land comprised in Khewat No. 237, Khatuni No. 314 and has also 5/12 share out of total land 14 kanals 18 marlas in Khewat No. 268 Khatuni No. 359 situated in village Burj Bhagnu, Tehsil and District Sirsa. His whole family is dependent upon agricultural income. That Chander Mohan is son of complainant who is also cultivating, supervising the said land. It is further averred that Chander Mohan is having bank account number 50200009615328 with op bank and has been taking agricultural loan from the bank time to time. Chander Mohan had opened this account in the bank on 02.01.2015 and Bhagwan Dass is joint holder in the said account. That premium amount of Rs.4128/- was deducted by op bank from the said account of Chander Mohan on 17.08.2016 and Rs.4802/- was deducted on 31.07.2017 and these deducted amounts were transferred to insurance company as per Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna on behalf of Chander Mohan for insurance of their cotton crop. Then amount of Rs.3158.10 was deducted by op bank from said account on 30.12.2017 for rabi crop and thereafter an amount of Rs.5011.20 was deducted from the account of Chander Mohan on 2.7.2017 for the cotton crop. In this way above said amounts were deducted from the account of Chander Mohan and were transferred to the account of insurance company and this facts came into the knowledge of complainant on perusal of statement of account of above said account of Chander Mohan. That complainant was never told the name of insurance company to which the deducted amount has been sent by op bank. It is further averred that complainant as well as his son Chander Mohan have never requested the op bank for cancellation of the insurance of the crop of the fields of complainant nor he has moved any such application in this regard to op bank and they have also never given any such application to any insurance company. The op bank has wrongly and falsely shown the entries in the account of Chander Mohan at their own level in order to conceal their fault and negligence. That they also filed a complaint bearing No. 12 of 2019 which was dismissed as withdrawn on technical ground and in that complaint op bank has admitted that op bank had deducted an amount of Rs.4802/- on 31.07.2017 from the account of Chander Mohan for paying the premium of insurance of crop to insurance company under PMFBY. That similarly one Raj Kumar resident of village Burj Bhangu who is field neighbour of complainant deposited amount of Rs.4581.60 under the said scheme for insurance of his Kharif crop of 2017 and said Raj Kumar has been paid insurance claim amount of Rs.1,19,695.24 on 31.10.2018 by the concerned insurance company. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 was damaged, therefore, complainant is also entitled to get the amount of compensation under the above said scheme because as per report of Agriculture department the average of cotton crop is 305.51 Kgs. per hectare. That complainant approached and requested to op bank for explaining the name of the insurance company to whom the amount has been sent on behalf of Chander Mohan but op bank continued put off the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 19.11.2018 to the op bank but op bank did not give any reply to the notice nor taken any action in the matter and even the bank officials have falsely asserted that amount of premium deducted and sent to the concerned insurance company has been returned by the company and adjusted into the account of Chander Mohan, but in fact bank itself deducted the amount under the said scheme without informing them and they do not know the name of insurance company. That despite several requests and demand of complainant, the op bank has now totally effused to admit the claim of complainant and have caused deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the op bank to pay insurance amount alongwith interest and also to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- compensation for harassment and also amount of Rs.6000/- as litigation expenses.
3. On notice, op appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action and concealment of true and material facts and that earlier complainant and his son Chander Mohan have filed a joint complaint before this Forum and same has been withdrawn on 23.10.2019 and now complainant has filed the complaint on same grounds. On merits, it is submitted that complainant and his son Chander Mohan jointly applied to the op bank for providing financial assistance in the shape of KCC limit for the amount of Rs.2,89,000/- vide loan application dated 16.12.2014. Chander Mohan is main applicant and complainant Bhagwan Dass is co-applicant in this account. It is further submitted that complainant has mentioned that answering op has debited the amount of Rs.4802/- on 31.07.2017 in the account of complainant to pay the premium of insurance but complainants have objected that why said amount has been debited in their account and threatened answering op to refund the same, hence answering op has refunded the premium on 02.08.2017 in their account. The amount debited for insurance of rabi crops has also been refunded in the above said account as they both are joint holders of said account. It is further submitted that it is wrong to say that complainant as well as his son Chander Mohan has never requested the op bank for cancellation of insurance. That when Kharif crop of 2017 has not been got insured then how op bank can inform the name of insurance company. It is further submitted that when officials of answering op demanded written application from the complainant then they refused to submit any application. Both the parties led their evidence in the earlier complaint and at the time of arguments instead of arguing the case complainants got withdrawn the complaint and now Bhagwan Dass has filed the present complaint on the same ground for which he has no right. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that though according to complainant it is mentioned in the title of complaint the name of insurance company is to be disclosed by op bank but as op bank denied that crop of complainant was not insured with any insurance company, therefore, as per statement of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager of op bank, no insurance company was impleaded and vide order dated 23.08.2021 the case was adjourned for evidence of complainant.
5. The complainant Bhagwan Dass in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9.
6. On the other hand, op bank has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. At the very outset we would like to mention that present complaint was filed by original complainant Bhagwan Dass but on 29.08.2023 an application was moved by applicant Purshotam son of Sh. Bhagwan Dass complainant submitting therein that his father Bhagwan Dass has expired on 15.11.2022 and he may be given permission to pursue further with the present complaint on his behalf. The other LRs of Bhagwan Dass namely Chand Mohan, Shiv Kumar, Inderpal and Sanjeev Kumar also signed on the affidavit of Purshotam regarding no objection if Purshotam is allowed to pursue with the present complaint and said application was allowed on 13.03.2024 and as such amended title has been filed.
9. Now coming to the merits of the present complaint, it is evident that original complainant and then after his death on 15.11.2022 his above said LR Purshotam i.e. his son is claiming insurance claim for the loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in the above said agricultural land 8.60 acres of original complainant Bhagwan Dass. However, op bank has taken a specific plea that on 31.07.2017, op bank deducted the amount of Rs.4802/- from the joint account of Chander Mohan brother of applicant Purshotam and their father but as they objected that whey said amount has been debited from their account and threatened the op bank to refund the said amount, therefore, op bank refunded the premium on 02.08.2017 and they also denied to give any application in this regard and as such cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 could not be insured with any of insurance company and the plea of op bank appears to be genuine and true. From the statement of account placed on file by complainant it is evident that premium amount of Rs.4802.40 deducted by op bank for insurance of cotton crop of complainant was remitted back in their account just within one day i.e. on 02.08.2017 as complainant and Chander Mohan objected that why said amount has been deducted from their joint account and as such op bank cannot be said at fault. Further more, there is nothing on file to prove the fact that there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2017. The complainant has placed on file letter/ report of ASO, office of Deputy Director of Agriculture department, Sirsa as Ex.C2 but in the said report it is only mentioned that average yield of cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 was 301.51 Kgs. per hectare but there is no report about threshold yield of block and without threshold yield of block, it cannot be said that there was loss to the cotton crop of Kharif 2017 of complainant or that average yield was below the threshold yield because as per operational guidelines of PMFBY for calculation of loss, the average yield of village should be less than threshold yield of block. Since there is no report about threshold yield of block, therefore, it cannot be said that above said average yield of village Burj Bhangu was less and the complaint deserves dismissal.
10. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President,
Dated: 21.03.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
