Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/334/2019

Bharat Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Saneja

04 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.334 of  2019.                                                             Date of Instt.:  27.08.2019.                                                                        Date of Decision: 04.12.2023.

Bharat Pal son of Chandu Lal resident of village Pilli Mandori, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainants.

                                     Versus     

1.HDFC Bank Ltd. Bhattu Kalan Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

2. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd.SCO 72, Ist Floor, Mansa Devi Complex, Swastik Vihar Sector 05, Chandigarh.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                   Sh.Manoj Saneja, Advocate for complainant.                                            Sh.Amit Wadhera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                   Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.2. 

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  DR.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 Pili Mandori 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 bearing No.50200004110560 from Op No.1; that the complainant got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.2 and in this regard an amount of Rs.4219/- was debited from bank account of complainant by Op No.1 on 02.07.2018 as premium of the insurance in question, which was credited in the account of Op No.2; that due to hailstorm, the cotton crop of the complainant got damaged and complainant intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.12500/- per hectare; that despite several requests besides serving of legal notice, the claim for damaged crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainant has suffered great financial losses. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                                Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately. Ops No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, barred by limitation and suppression of material facts from this Commission etc. It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.4219/- was debited from the account of the complainant on 02.07.2018 and was transferred to the Op No.2, therefore, the Op No.2/insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss, if any, suffered by 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 in its written version wherein it has been submitted that no detail with regard to claim, assessment, bank and repudiation with regard to matter in question is available with the answering; that the complainant has not submitted any assessment report made by the agriculture department; that without accurate and full bank account details, the answering Op is unable to trace the claim status of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of replying OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C4.

 5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Sh.Mohit Bagla, Senior Executive Ex.RW2/A alongwith document Annexure RW2/1 whereas learned counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered documents Annexure R1/A to Annexure R1/B.

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

7.                          The complainant has alleged that his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 season was damaged and the concerned department had assessed the loss of cotton crop to the tune of Rs.30273/- per hectare (Rs.12256/- per acre) but despite that the Ops have not paid the compensation despite several requests.

8.                          The Op No.1/bank in its reply has mentioned that the premium to the tune of Rs.4219/- as premium for cotton crop Kharif-2018 was debited from the account of the complainant and remitted to the Op No.2/insurance company. This fact find supports from the statement of account Annexure C1 mentioning therein that an amount of Rs.4219/- was debited as premium on account of insurance of cotton crop.  Learned counsel for the Op No.2/insurance company stressed hard  on the point that the OP No.1/bank has not sent any amount of the complainant as premium of the crop in question and the crop of the complainant was not insured with it. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the Op No.1/bank has produced the loan detail of the complainant whereby it has been mentioned that an amount of Rs.4219/- was deducted from the account of the complainant on 02.07.2018 and was remitted to the Op No.2/insurance company on 14.08.2018, therefore, this plea is hereby declined. Undisputedly, the insurance company had accepted the payment qua insurance premium of crop and kept the same with it meaning thereby that op no.2/insurance company had accepted the premium without any objection and now when the damage to the crop of complainant has been caused, then op no.2.insurance company arbitrarily and illegally denying to pay the genuine claim of the complainants. So, the OP no.2/insurance company 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/insurance company only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainant for Kharif 2018 season and op no.1/bank is not found responsible in this regard.

9.                          Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant has suffered loss of sown crop in 7.24 acres and the total land of the complainant has also been mentioned as 7.24 Acres in Annexure R1/A i.e. application for retail agriculture loan form and the concerned Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.30273/- per hectare (Rs.12256/- per acre), therefore, it would be just and proper to give compensation to the complainant as assessed by the concerned agriculture department.

10.                        Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.88733/- (in round figure) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization. The Op No.2/insurance company is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. The complaint against Op No.1/bank stands dismissed.  The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the entire amount would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of this compliant till actual payment.      

11.                        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. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 04.12.2023

 

                                                                                                        

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