Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/577/2019

MAHABIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

kuldeep singh

27 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                Complaint Case No. : 577 of 2019

                                                                Date of Institution    : 25.07.2019

                                                                Date of decision:      : 27.05.2024

 

Mahabir Singh son of Sh. Munshi Singh R/o village Sungarpur, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.

...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

1. HDFC Bank, Branch S-175D, Meham Chowk, Bhiwani through Branch Manager.

 

2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch at near Hansi Gate, in front of Nehru Park, Bhiwani through Branch Manager.

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Kuldeep Singh Parmar, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Pawan Kumar Punia, Advocate for OP No.1.

Sh. Mukesh Jangra Advocate for OP No.2.

  

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant is an agriculturist having land situated in the village Sungarpur. He got sanctioned K.C.C loan from OP No.1 vide account no.04798040003141.  It is stated that Rs.8452/- were deducted by OP No.1 from his account as insurance premium for his kharif crop.  It is stated that cotton crop of complainant standing in 14 acre  was destroyed, therefore, he is entitled to get Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre. Claim was submitted with OP No.2 but of no use. So, application dated 27.05.2019 was moved before Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Bhiwani as well as at C.M. Window but of no avail despite followed by legal notice dated 11.07.2019 to the OPs. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the Ops to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant @ interest 18% per annum from July 2018 till disbursement of the amount. Further to pay Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation for harassment besides Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate written statements. OP No.1 in its W.S. raised raising preliminary objections qua cause of action, locus standi, and maintainability of complaint, mis-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that complainant gOt mortgaged his agriculture land under KCC. Kharif 2018 crops of complainant was insured with OP No.2 and the answering OP bank has deducted premium of Rs.8452/- on 01.08.2018.  It is submitted that during implementation of scheme for kharif 2018, Aadhar car details of complainant were not updated with the OP bank and due to this reason insurance proposal was not registered in National Crop Insurance Portal. OP No.2 insurance company returned the premium to the answering OP bank and the same was credited to the account of complainant on 26.11.2019.  It is stated that as per Govt. Instructions with regard to PMFBY, it was decided that where the premium deducted from the farmer paid by the bank in time, the insurance company will pay the claim to the farmers. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and thus is not liable to pay any claim to complainant and prayed dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.2 insurance company filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, locus standi, deficiency in service and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that as per records, no information/particulars of complainant was uploaded on NICP till cutoff date, therefore, the complainant was not insured with the OP and thus the OP is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. It is added that all eligible claims have already been settle by the OP Company of other farmers. As such, denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed dismissal of the complaint.

4.                 Ld. counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of  Mahabir Singh and  Sh. Ramrakh as Ex. CW1/A &Ex. CW2/A respectively alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-10 and closed the evidence.

5.                 On the other side, On behalf of OP No.1 affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Sh. Subhash, Legal Manager as filed alongwith document Ex. R-1 and closed the evidence.

6.                 Ld. counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. R2 which was already on file, and documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4 And closed the evidence.

7.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                 Admittedly, the OP No.1 bank deducted Rs.8452/- towards premium amount from bank account of complainant pertaining to insurance of crop for the season kharif 2018.  As per pleadings of OP No.2, there was no record found pertaining to complainant on the National Crop Insurance Portal, therefore, the premium amount was refunded by it to the OP bank who refunded the same to the complainant.  It is admitted by OP No.1 bank in their written statement that Aadhar card details of complainant were not updated with them  and due to this, insurance portal was not registered in NCIP. 

9.                 Ld. counsel for OP No.2 has argued that as per Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) (Annexure R-1 to R-4), in case any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting. Further, in case of any loss in transit of premium due to negligence of bank etc., it shall be liable for payments of claims.

10.               After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the considered opinion that it was duty of the OP bank to update the relevant information pertaining to a farmer/complainant but admittedly, it could not do so, therefore, we have observed that OP bank is negligent and deficient in providing proper services to the complainant. As per affidavit (Ex. CW2/A) of Ramrakh son of Sh. Munshi Singh-brother of complainant reveals that he had sown cotton crop in about 11 acre in the kharif season 2018 and he has received Rs.2,09,356/- as damages to his crop  and whose name is also entered in the jamabandi (Ex. C-1) placed on record by complainant.  In this way, he has received compensation to the crop loss to the tune of Rs.19032/- per acre.

11.               In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the OP no.1 bank is negligent and deficient in providing proper services to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get compensation of the loss occurred to his crop from OP No.1 bank as well as harassment and litigation charges. As per copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-17 (Ex.C-1) and girdawari for the year 2018-19, complainant is owner of the alleged agricultural land and he sown cotton crop in 14 acres of land. Taking loss in one acre as Rs.19,000/-, the complainant is entitled to Rs.19,000/- per acre loss x 14 acre land=2,66,000/-.   Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP No.1 bank is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.2,66,000/- (Rs. Two lac sixty six thousand) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand) as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay Rs.11,000/- (Rs.Eleven thousand) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OP No.1 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default.                               If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party no.1 may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated:27.05.2024