Haryana

Kaithal

30/20

Veena Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kirpal Singh

12 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.30 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 16.01.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:12.12.2022.

Veena Kumari D/o 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. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
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. M.R.Miglani, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

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

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Veena Kumari-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.50200017850454 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant for the year 2018-19 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.9040.50 paise on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 23/24.09.2018, the paddy 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.  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.9040.50 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Khariff, 2018 (paddy) and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account vide UTR/Transaction No.HDFCR52018011262483134 on 13.08.2018 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; jurisdiction; time-barred;  that the complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that as per record, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of kharif crop has been affected in Village Kutubpur, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy Rain Fall” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme and to prove the same, no documentary proof of any kind has been annexed with the complaint; that role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with the 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 that are part of this scheme.  In fact, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent as his banker had not uploaded the data of complainant on National Crop Insurance Portal of Govt. of India or supplied any proposal form to the answering respondent due to the reason best known to them.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent.  The other 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-A to Annexure-C and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R3 to Annexure-R9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.  . 

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.4803/-  per acre.  Hence, for 15 acre 2 kanal loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.72,045/-+Rs.1200.75 paise which becomes total amounting to Rs.73,245.75 paise  (Rs.4803/- x  15 acre 2 kanal) i.e. to say Rs.73,246/-.      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.73,246/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  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 Kutabpur while negligently, the officials of respondent No.1-bank have given wrong name of the area to be Dhand while actually it is Kutabpur.  Hence, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank-respondent No.1 which shall be paid to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted with cost. 

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.:12.12.2022.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.