Haryana

Kaithal

28/20

Ram Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kirpal Singh

16 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.28 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 16.01.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:16.12.2022.

Ram Chander S/o Shadi Ram, r/o Village Kutabpur, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, Plot No.77/10 and 78/10, near Pehowa Chowk, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, Sec-8, SCO-3, HUDA Market, Karnal (Haryana)-132001.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No.305, Secretariat, Kaithal.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Kirpal Singh, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

Sh. Arvind Khurania, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sunil Kumar, PO SA Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Ram Chander-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned and possessed land measuring  15.2 acre (122 Kanal 13 Marla), detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.50200017851609 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant for the year 2017-18 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.5581.13 paise on 30.12.2017 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 10.04.2018, the rabi (wheat) crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to respondent No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of complainant alongwith officials of respondent No.2 and assessed 90% damage of wheat crop in his agriculture land.  After the survey, the complainant did not receive any amount, whereas son and daughter of complainant got Rs.68,185.19 paise on 01.03.2019 and wife of complainant got Rs.58,761.22 paise for his damaged crops but they were not satisfied with the amount paid by the OPs.  It is further alleged that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.3,64,000/-.  The complainant requested the respondents to pay the said amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  Respondents No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the premium amount of Rs.5581.13 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 30.12.2017 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Rabi 2017-18 (wheat) and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account vide UTR/Transaction No.HDFCR52018011262483134 on 12.01.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Soft copy of consolidated detailed list of farmers/proposals/declarations pertaining to different villages (who were loanee farmer of HDFC Bank Kaithal) including that of present complainant were prepared/uploaded on PMFBY Portal within prescribed time/cut off date by respondent No.1 and such consolidated proposals/list of farmers/declarations were also submitted to respondent No.2 well within stipulated time.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this commission; that the complainant never intimated/file claim with the answering respondent.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Respondent No.3 filed the written version 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.   

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.  OP No.2 did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, evidence of OP No.2 was closed vide court order dt. 23.11.2022. 

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

8.             ­­­­Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and he has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3676.40 paise per acre.  Hence, for 15.2 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.55,881/- (Rs.3676.40 paise x  15.2 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.55,881/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted with cost.  The cost is assessed as Rs.5500/- which will be paid by the respondent No.2-insurance company to the complainant.     

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent No.2 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 court:

Dt.:16.12.2022.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.