BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 222 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 02.05.2019.
Date of Decision : 26.07.2021.
Smt. Saraswati Devi w/o Shri Duli Chand, resident of # 353, Gali No.6, Aggarsain Colony, Sirsa (Haryana).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. ICICI Lombard HOUSE, 414, P. Balu Mard, Veer Sawarkar Marg, Near Siddhivinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025.
2. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, VPO Jamal, Tehsil N.S. Chopta, District Sirsa (Haryana).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. JASWANT SINGH…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ashok Saharan, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops) on the averments that complainant is having 48 kanals of agricultural land ( as detailed in Para No.2 of the complaint) in the revenue estate of village Kutiana, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta District Sirsa and is having Kisan Credit Card account with op no.2 bearing account number 3299008800014110. She has mortgaged her above said 48 kanals land with op no.2. It is further averred that as per the notification of Government of India, all the Kisan Credit Card account holders are required to get their crop insured through their respective banker and as such op no.2 bank deducted amount of Rs.3352.23 on 29.7.2017 from the account of complainant as premium for insurance of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. That in this way, the crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 in above said land was insured with op no.1 through op no.2 but to surprise of complainant, the premium deducted from her account by op no.2 was deposited back in her account on 17.10.2017 without any prior notice or any information to the complainant and without explaining reason to refund the same. On her inquiry in this regard, the op no.2 told to the complainant that op no.1 has not accepted her premium and they have refunded the above said amount to op no.2 and op no.1 also informed the op no.2 that the adhar card of complainant is not linked to the bank account, whereas complainant is getting subsidy from the Government on account of interest on the Kisan Credit Card amount and this subsidy is transferred only if the adhar card is linked to the account number. It is further averred that op no.1 has also received the premium of Rabi crop, but that has not been returned to the complainant. That as per report of Agriculture Department, Sirsa, the average production of cotton crop of the complainant in Kharif, 2017 is far below the threshold production as set by the Agriculture Department and agreed by op no.1 and other farmers of village Kutiana having land in the village have received insurance claim against the damage of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. That complainant was also eligible for the insurance claim on account of damage of cotton crop due to natural calamities, but due to negligence on the part of ops, complainant has suffered financial loss. The complainant is legally entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @12% per annum on account of loss of crop and is also entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of unnecessary harassment and besides this, she is also entitled to an amount of Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. That complainant also sent a legal notice to the ops on 27.11.2018 but to no effect and the act and conduct of the ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Kutiyana, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta District Sirsa due to the reason mentioned in the loss assess report “Rains not lead to Inundation” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground given in the loss assess report alone. It is further submitted that insurance company cannot be questioned for proposal related disputes. 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 either by complainant herself or by bank of complainant. In the present complaint, complainant is claiming for cotton crop, but alleged loss to the crop was not covered under the reason “Inundation and Hailstorm”. It is further clarified that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers. If any mistake is done by bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount. It is further submitted that it is clarified that except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalized by government agencies on the basis of yield of crop and thereafter, claims were to be paid to bank of farmers. The insurance company is playing a role of implementing agency in the scheme in accordance with guidelines prescribed by Government. Further more, in localized claims, three perils are covered under the scheme i.e. Hailstorm, Landslide and Inundation affecting isolated farms in the notified area. For localized claims, there was a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. After intimation of claim, necessary survey of affected area had to be conducted by surveyor for decision of claim of farmers. It is further submitted that it is not an individual insurance policy like other insurance policies rather it is a group insurance scheme in accordance with agreed terms and conditions of scheme which are binding on all of concerned related to the scheme. The complainant should have approached to DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and the decision of said department would be binding on all state Government/ Insurance Company/ Bank and farmers. But instead of filing complaint or grievance before DAC & FW department, the complainant has approached this Forum by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme and thus, present complaint cannot be adjudicated before this Forum. It is further submitted that complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of crop and thus, connected story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim. Merely allegation of claim intimation is not enough to establish that loss had actually occurred. Further, in absence of immediate intimation of claim, survey of damage field could not be conducted and therefore, it is almost impossible to determine quantification of loss. As per guidelines of scheme, immediate intimation was to be given within 48 hours but complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss of crop which reveals violation of terms and conditions of scheme. Other preliminary objections regarding non submission of proof of loss or weather report, limited coverage as per scheme, yield basis claims are decided by Government, no survey no quantification of loss, no privity of contract, non impleading of necessary parties and involvement of complicated facts and law are involved are also taken. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and above said pleas are also reiterated. It is submitted that claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss was occurred due to “Rains” but the same is not leading to Inundation, which is covered for loss under the scheme and complainant has made a false, bogus and baseless story just to grab the compensation. With these averments, prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed written version submitting therein that as per the term of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY scheme), which was launched by Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on 13.2.2016, for the farmers who have sought crop loan from any Financial Institutions, it was mandatory for the Banks to insure all the borrowers under the scheme. The premium of the insurance was to be deducted from the account and was to be paid to op no.1 insurance company by the bank. In the present case, the bank has debited the premium amount from the account of complainant as insurance premium for Kharif, 2017. As per clause 6.3.1 of revised operational guidelines of PMFBY, the adhar card is mandatory for availing crop insurance from Kharif, 2017 season onward. One of the officials of op no.1, Shri Deepak Gupta also informed the answering op in clarification by Email on 31.07.2017 that as per newly issued communication from Ministry of Agriculture Farmer Welfare, Adhar Card was mandatory for enrolment for all the farmers. As such detail regarding some accounts could not be uploaded on the portal of the insurance company due to non availability of the adhar card and the amount debited in their account was not remitted to the insurance company and was kept in the sundry account. It is further submitted that thereafter, the Government gave relaxation to the condition of compulsory obtaining adhar number for taking the benefits of Government sponsored crop insurance scheme and the last date was revised to 17 October, 2017 and as such the answering op requested the insurance company through its official Shri Deepak Gupta on 9.10.2017 for permission to remit the premium amount and to enter the entries in portal as per new guidelines, but vide their reply they denied to accept the premium on the ground that the last date for remittance of premium to insurance company of Kharif, 2017 season was 16.8.2017. That the answering op at once informed the circle office of the Bank at Hisar, which on 11.10.2017 requested the Haryana State Level Banker Committee to take up the matter with the Ministry/ Insurance Company for accepting the premium. It is further submitted that after the debit of amount of premium in the account of complainant, she alongwith the office bearer of Kisan Union visited the Bank premises and showed their grievance regarding the transfer of amount for insurance of the crops as they had not authorized the bank to get their crop insured. They were advised to deposit the adhar card with the Bank as insurance was necessary on the instructions from Govt. of India, but they refused to get the crop insured. As such, complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the present complaint against the answering op. It is further submitted that mere sanctioning/ disbursement of crop loan and submission of proposals/ declaration and remittance of premium by farmer/bank without explicit intent to raise the crop, does not constitute acceptance of risk by insurance company. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. Learned counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice dated 27.11.2018 Ex.C1, postal receipts Ex.C2, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C3, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C4, copy of statement of account Ex.C5, copy of letter of bank Ex.C6, copy of application for enhancement of limit Ex.C7, copy of mail of insurance company sent to bank Ex.C8, copy of mail of Director Agriculture Ex.C9, copy of letter of Deputy Director Agriculture Ex.C10, copy of statement of account of Krishan Ex.C11.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. R.P. Uttam, Branch Manager as Ex.R1, copy of statement of account Ex.R2, again copy of mail of insurance company Ex.R3, copy of mail of bank sent to insurance company on 9.10.2017 Ex.R4, and copy of mail sent by bank to Chief Manager, Circle Office, Hisar as Ex.R6 (whereas it should be Ex.R5).
7. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that as per Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY scheme), which was launched in the year 2016, the crops of every farmers who have obtained crop loan from any Financial Institutions i.e. Banks etc. and are growing notified crops were to be compulsorily insured with the insurance company by the Bank of the loanee farmers. The complainant is an agriculturist and has also availed crop loan from the opposite party no.2 by mortgaging her agricultural land as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint. He has further contended that as per scheme of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna, the opposite party no.2 deducted premium amount of Rs.3352.23 on 29.7.2017 for insuring the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainant with the opposite party no.1 insurance company, but to the very utter surprise of complainant, the premium amount of Rs.3352.23 deducted by op no.2 bank on 29.7.2017 was remitted back to her account on 17.10.2017 without any prior information, reason or notice to the complainant. That as per report of Agriculture Department, Sirsa, the average production of cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 is far below the threshold production and other farmers of village Kutiana having their agricultural land in this village have received insurance claim against the damage of their cotton crop of kharif, 2017 but complainant has not received any insurance claim so far. The reason given by op no.2 bank that op no.1 has not accepted her premium and they have refunded the amount of premium to op no.2 as her adhar card is not linked to the bank account is baseless and incorrect. Further, the premium amount for insurance of Rabi crop was also deducted by op no.2 bank and was remitted to op no.1 which has not been returned to the complainant, which clearly falsifies the stand of op no.2 bank regarding non linkage of adhar card with bank account. The complainant has suffered financial loss due to the damage of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and as such she is also entitled to the compensation for the same.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 while reiterating the contents of written version has contended that op no.1 has not received any premium amount from op no.2 bank for insurance of crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 and as such op no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The op no.1 also requested to the branch offices of op bank as well as to op no.2 bank vide mail dated 31.7.2017 that as per newly issued communication from Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers’ welfare, aadhar card mandatory for all the farmers loanee & non loanee, thus kindly update all the KCC record available with your banks with Aaadhar details for coverage to all the eligible farmers, but the op bank did not adhere to the same and has not uploaded the details of the complainant on the portal and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of op no.1. He has further contended that complainant cannot be termed to be consumer of op no.1 insurance company without payment of any premium amount and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
11. Learned counsel for op no.2 has contended that op no.1 had not accepted the premium amount for insurance of crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 due to the reason that adhar card of the complainant was not linked with her account number and the op no.2 bank sent mail dated 9.10.2017 to op no.1 requesting that as per new guidelines of Govt. of India, the last date has been revised to 17th October, 2017, so please permit us to remit the amount and enter the entries in portal by non aadhar/ as per GOI guidelines. Op no.2 bank also sent mail to their Chief Manager, Circle Office, Hisar on 11.10.2017 to take up the matter with the Ministry/ Insurance Company for accepting the premium. The complainant was also advised to deposit the adhar card with the bank but the complainant refused to get her crop insured and therefore, complaint deserves dismissal.
12. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.
13. The complainant in order to prove her ownership over the agricultural land in village Kutiana, District Sirsa has placed on file copy of jamabanadi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C3. The complainant has placed on record copy of statement of account Ex.C5, from which it is proved on record that on 29.7.2017, an amount of Rs.3352.23 was deducted from her account by op no.2 as insurance premium for insuring the kharif crop of 2017 with op no.1.
14. Admittedly, the complainant had taken crop loan against her agricultural land from op no.2 and op no.2 deducted an amount of Rs.3352.23 on 29.7.2017 from her account for insuring the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 with op no.1 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. According to complainant no.1, average yield of the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of village Kutiana as per report of Agriculture Department was less than the threshold yield and other farmers of village Kutiana whose crop of Kharif, 2017 were insured with the insurance company have already received insurance claim amount, but the complainant has not received any claim amount despite the fact that she has suffered financial loss due to less yield of cotton crop of kharif, 2017. In order to prove loss to the complainant due to damage of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017, she has placed on record copy of letter of Deputy Agriculture Director, Sirsa dated 16.1.2019 Ex.C10 whereby it was informed that average production of Kharif, 2017 of village Kutiana is 245.72 Kgs. per hectare and according to complainant, same is less than threshold production. Further, the complainant has also pleaded that other farmers of village Kutiana, District Sirsa having their land in village Kutiana have received insurance claim against the damage to their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 but she has not received any insurance claim. There is nothing on file to disbelieve the version of the complainant. The op no.1 or the op no.2 bank have not denied the fact that other farmers of village Kutiana having their land in this village have not received any insurance claim amount against damage of their crop.
15. The ground of non receiving of premium amount by op no.1 though same was deducted from her account by op no.2 bank is due to non linkage of adhar card with the account of complainant. No doubt, vide mail Ex.C8 dated 31.7.2017, the op no.1 insurance company asked the bank that as per newly issued communication from Ministry of Agriculture Farmer’s welfare, aadhar card is mandatory for enrolment for all the farmers (loanee & non loanee) and thus kindly update all the KCC records available with your banks with aadhar details for coverage to all the eligible farmers. Admittedly, initially the last date for remittance of premium to the insurance company of Kharif, 2017 session was 16th August, 2017. But in response to the mail dated 9.10.2017 Ex.C9 of the Director Agriculture sent to Senior Manager, Circle Office Hisar of op no.2 bank, whereby intimation regarding relaxation of provision of obtaining aadhar number of farmers for enrollment of farmers under PMFBY/ RWBCIS for Kharif 2017 for one time measure only was given, the OP no.2 bank vide mail of even dated i.e. 9.10.2017 Ex.R4, requested the op no.1 insurance company that as per new guidelines of GOI, the last date has been revised to 17th October, 2017, so please permit us to remit the amount and enter the entries in portal by non aadhar/ as per GOI guidelines, but op no.1 has not led any evidence to show that op no.1 gave any reply to that mail of op no.2 bank. Further more, the op no.2 bank also sent a mail dated 11.10.2017 Ex.R5 to their Circle Office, Hisar requesting to take up the matter with Ministry/ Insurance Company for accepting the premium. The op no.1 insurance company has not led any evidence to show that as to why premium was not being accepted by it for insuring crop of farmer despite the fact that as per Prime Minister Fasam Bima Yojna, there is contract between banks and insurance companies including op no.1 to compulsorily insure the crop of loanee farmers after receiving premium amount.
16. The op no.2 bank has discharged its duty by requesting op no.1 insurance company through email dated 9.10.2017 Ex.R4 to receive the premium amount as per new guidelines of Govt. of India, whereby the last date to receive the premium was revised to 17th October, 2017 and it was also requested to permit the bank to remit the amount and enter the entries in portal by non aadhar as per GOI guidelines, but the op no.1 insurance company has not placed on file any document showing the reason for non accepting the premium amount from the bank despite new guidelines of Govt. of India. Further, the op no.2 bank vide its mail dated 11.10.2017 Ex.R5 also requested to its Circle Office, Hisar to take up the matter with Ministry/ Insurance Company for accepting the premium as per new guidelines as Ministry has relaxed the provision of compulsory obtaining the aadhar number for taking benefit of Govt. sponsored crop insurance schemes viz. PMFBY/ RWBCIS for loanee farmers during Kharif, 2017 season. When the Govt. of India and Ministry of Agriculture Department had given relaxation in obtaining aadhar card of farmers, then insurance company should have accepted the premium without insisting to obtain aadhar card. But neither op no.1 insurance company accepted the premium on the request of the bank nor gave any reply to the mail of op no.2 bank showing any other reason for non acceptance of premium on behalf of complainant. So, the insurance company op no.1 has clearly contravened the newly guidelines of Govt. of India.
17. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.1 has vehemently argued that there is no direct contract between complainant and insurance company and contract, if any is with op no.2 bank and complainant cannot be termed as consumer of the op no.1 insurance company in absence of any direct contract and also in absence of payment of any valid consideration i.e. premium amount for insurance of crop. But we found no substance in this contention of learned counsel for op no.1 because Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in recent judgment in case titled as Canara Bank Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others, CA No.1042 of 2020 with other civil appeals decided on 6.2.2020 also dealt with the above said issue and observed as under:-
“ To decide these issues, it would be apposite to refer to the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(d) of the Act, which reads as follows:-
“2 Definitions- 1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
xxx xxx xxx
d) “consumer” means any person who,-
(i) buys and goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
It has been further observed that:-
The definition of consumer under the Act is very wide and it not only includes the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration but also includes the beneficiary of such services who may be a person other than the person who hires or avails of services. Taking the issue of privity of contract, we are of the considered view that as far as the Act is concerned, it is not necessary that there should be privity of contract between the insurance company and the claimants. The definition of consumer under Section 2(d) quoted hereinabove is in 2 parts. Sub-clause (i) of Section 2(1)(d) deals with a person who buys and goods and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods as long as the use is made with the approval of such person. Therefore, the definition of consumer even in the 1st part not only includes the person who has purchased but includes any user of the goods so long as such user is made with the approval of the person who has purchased the goods. As far as the definition of the consumer in relation to hiring or availing of services is concerned, the definition, in our view, is much wider. In this part of the second, consumer includes not only the person who has hired or availed of the services but also includes any beneficiary of such services. Therefore, an insured could be a person who hires or avails of the services of the insurance company but there could be many other persons who could be the beneficiaries of the services. It is not necessary that those beneficiaries should be parties to the contract of insurance. They are the consumers not because they are parties to the contract of insurance but because they are the beneficiaries of the policy taken out by the insured.”
18. The above said authority is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel for op no.1 has also contended that even the premium has not been received from the party to the contract i.e. op no.2 bank and as such, op no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. However, we again found no substance in this contention of learned counsel for op no.1 because the op no.2 bank was requesting the op no.1 to receive the premium amount and op no.1 has already accepted the premium of 498 farmers as is clear from the mail of op no.2 bank Ex.R4 sent to op no.1 and therefore op no.2 was hiring the services of op no.1 for valid consideration. Moreover, in view of above said provisions of Consumer Protection Act quoted by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, hiring or availing of the services for consideration paid, or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment will come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Further more, the op no.1 is receiving premium amount from the bank on behalf of farmers under group insurance scheme and admittedly huge amount has already been paid to op no.1 by op no.2 bank and therefore, it cannot be said that services of the op no.1 were being availed without any valid consideration. Moreover, according to complainant, op no.1 has also received premium of Rabi crop of 2017-2018 which has not been returned to the complainant and this fact is duly corroborated from the copy of statement of account Ex.C5 which goes to show that an amount of Rs.2203.52 was deducted from her account on 30.12.2017 on account of premium of Rabi crop of 2017-2018 season and on this account, the complainant has become consumer of op no.1 for valid consideration. This fact clearly indicates that insurance company op no.1 is indulged in unfair trade practice to deny genuine claim even after acceptance of premium from the same complainant. The complainant being beneficiary of the insurance scheme is also consumer of op no.1 and at the most op no.1 can claim amount of premium of the crop of Kharif, 2017 i.e. amount of Rs.3352.23 which was returned back in the account of complainant due to lapses on the part of op no.1 insurance company and same will be paid to op no.1 being deferred payment but op no.1 cannot deny insurance claim due to its own lapses. The plea of op no.1 that loss of cotton crop due to the reason mentioned in the loss assess report “Rains not lead to Inundation” is not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy has also no substance and is without any basis as op no.1 has not led any evidence in this regard and has not placed on file insurance policy or the loss assess report. Moreover, other farmers of village Kutiana whose crops have been damaged due to the rain have been compensation, so complainant cannot be denied compensation due to the damage to her crop due to rain.
19. Now the question arises as to for how much amount of compensation, the complainant is entitled for the damage of her cotton crop of kharif, 2017? The complainant has claimed that she had sown cotton crop in her 48 kanals of land and due to damage to her crop, she is entitled to an amount of Rs. One lac on account of damage, besides an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of unnecessary harassment and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. The complainant is claiming above said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- being loss amount on account of damage to her cotton crop in 6 acres of agriculture land and as per copy of pass book of one Krishan son of Hardeva resident of Kutiana Ex.C11, said Krishan received an amount of Rs.1,82,904.81 on 23.10.2018 in his account as insurance claim for the damage to his crop of Kharif, 2017 in his 11 acres 11 marlas of land. So, taking into account the amount of Rs.1,82,904.81 as claim amount for 11 acres 11 marlas land as received by one Krishan for the loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017, the loss in this case to the complainant per acre comes to Rs.16,500/- per acre. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to claim amount of Rs.16,500/- per acre and for her six acres of land, she is entitled to the total amount of Rs.99,000/- as insurance claim amount alongwith interest for the loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 from op no.1 insurance company besides compensation for unnecessary harassment, mental agony and is also entitled to litigation expenses from op no.1. However, no liability of op no.2 bank to pay any compensation to the complainant is made out as we have not found any mistake on the part of op no.2 rather op no.2 bank duly discharged its duty by sending mails (Ex.R4 & Ex.R5) to op no.1 and also to its Circle Office, Hisar requesting op no.1 to receive premium amount and retained the same with it in sundry account and waited the response of op no.1 for receiving the premium. But however, when after lapse of considerable time, op no.1 insurance company did not adhere to the requests of op no.2 bank, it left with no other option and ultimately on 17.10.2017 i.e. on the last date to receive premium amount by op no.1, op no.2 bank refunded back the premium amount to the complainant.
20. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow this complaint qua opposite party no.1 insurance company and direct op no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.99,000/- as insurance claim amount to the complainant for less yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 2.5.2019 till actual payment within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above said amount of Rs.99,000/- will carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing complaint till actual payment. We further direct the op no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment etc. and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, op no.1 is well within its right to deduct the amount of Rs.3352.23 as premium amount at the time of payment of claim amount to the complainant. The complaint qua op no.2 bank stands dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Commission. President,
Dated:26.07.2021. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
Typed by:
Jagdish Kumar (Stenographer)
