Haryana

Kaithal

311/19

Ram Mehar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Dalbir Singh

20 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.311/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 25.09.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:20.12.2022.

Ram Mehar S/o Sh. Mangal R/o Village Kithana, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. HDFC Bank through its Branch Manager, Kithana, Distt. Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company through is Branch Manager, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
3. Distt. Agriculture Officer, Mini Secretariat, Karnal Road, Kaithal.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. D.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

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

                Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Ram Mehar-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 has 21.5 acre land in Village Kithana, Distt. Kaithal.  The complainant took a KCC Loan from respondent No.1 vide account No.50200022381708.  It is alleged that in July, 2021 the complainant had sown paddy crops in 21 acre land and also insured the same with the respondents vide Govt. Scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” and an amount of Rs.6541.50 on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium was deducted by the respondent No.1 from his above-said KCC account in lieu of said crop insurance.  It is further alleged that on 23.09.2018 the paddy crops of the complainant were damaged/ruined due to heavy rain and flow of water.  On 23.09.2018, the complainant approached the respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Agriculture Officer, Kaithal and lodged the complaint and thereafter, the team of Agriculture Office inspected the fields of complainant and submitted their report that the paddy crop cultivated by complainant was damaged upto 30-40% in 4 acres.  It is further alleged that the crop in four acre cultivated by the complainant was damaged upto 80-85% and in 17 acres upto 40% and suffered a loss of Rs.4,00,000/- but the respondent No.3 wrongly assessed the loss of complainant.  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 statements separately.  Respondent No.1 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the respondent No.1 has no role about issuance of crop insurance policy.  However, it is submitted that as per Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY), present complainant alongwith his son Pawan Kumar, being loanee faramers/KCC-Kissan Credit Card holder from respondent No.1 was required to be covered under this PMFBY scheme compulsorily.  To implement the scheme of PMFBY, premium amount of Rs.6541.50 was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 and such premium was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account No.0248002100026568 of PNB vide UTR/Transaction No.HDFCR52018081389955067 on 13.08.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             In the written statement, respondent No.2 raised preliminary objections that the role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institutions who are part of this scheme.  In the present complaint, the complainant is alleged claiming for paddy crop of Village Kithana which was allegedly insured through respondent No.1-bank but the alleged loss to the crop was not covered under the scheme.  In fact the complainant had not taken the insurance of paddy crop for said land through bank of the complainant.  It is pertinent to mention here that as per NCI Portal, the account number mentioned in the complaint does not belong to complainant being owner.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of 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 statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi and evasively denied all the facts contained in the complaint 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, the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R6, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R7 to Annexure-R11 and respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

8.             In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5892.48 paise per acre.  Hence, for 10.9 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.64,228/- (Rs.5892.48 paise x 10.9 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.64,228/- 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.  In the present case, respondent No.1-bank has given wrong name of the area in which land was under survey for the damage of crops.  The name of the area is actually Kithana while negligently, the officials of bank-respondent No.1 have given wrong name of the area to be Rajound while actually it is Kithana.  Hence, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank-respondent No.1 which shall be paid to the complainant.  The name of village be corrected in the record.    

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.:20.12.2022.  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.