BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 128 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 19.03.2020.
Date of Decision : 09.04.2024.
Rajender Singh, aged 48 years son of Bhojraj, resident of village Mithi Sureran, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Oriental General Insurance Company Limited, Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Road New Delhi Pin 110002.
2. Oriental Bank of Commerce through its Manager, Branch Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anil Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, 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 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( now after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist and is having aq KCC account with op no.2 bearing No. 04425111005502. He is owner in possession of land measuring 57 kanals 13 marals being 1/4th share of total land 230-12 situated in the revenue estate of village Mithi Sureran, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa. That as per crop insurance scheme, on 15.12.2018 the op no.2 bank deducted premium of Rs.403.69 for insurance of his wheat crop in 0.404 hectare of land and premium amount of Rs.1475.07 for insurance of his barley crop in 2.428 hectare of land and he was told that premium has been deposited with op no.1. It is further averred that barley crop of complainant of Rabi 2018 season was damaged and other farmers have received insurance claim at the rate of Rs.11,700/- per acre. That it was told to the complainant that name of village of complainant has been wrongly entered on the portal as village Thobria in place of Mithi Sureran and due to which complainant has received claim amount of Rs.16,165/- on 25.10.2019 instead of his actual insurance claim of Rs.75,000/- which is negligence and deficiency in service of ops. As such complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that there is no insurance of crop of complainant of village Mithi Sureran. The bank has uploaded the name of village As Thobria instead of village Mithi Sureran and crop barley, wheat and this mistake has never been got corrected by the bank or farmer within the stipulated period. The loss of the rabi crop barley uploaded by bank as assessed by the Competent Authority worked out according to the operational guidelines of PMFBY for the crop of Rabi 2018 of village uploaded by the banker of complainant and has been paid by answering op to the banker of complainant who got the insurance coverage for complainant by giving and uploading the particulars of village Thobria and crop barley on NCI Portal. It is further submitted that record uploaded by banker of complainant is still on the portal. That no loss of wheat crop of rabi 2018 of village uploaded by banker of complainant has been reported. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version submitting therein that bank has debited the amount of insurance premium from the account of complainant and has credited the same to the account of op no.1 as premium of the insurance. All the information required by op no.1 was sent to the insurance company as per rules but by clerical mistake the name of village has been typed as Thobria instead of Mithi Sureran. As per clause 17 read with 19 (XXII) of PMFBY scheme Rabi, 2018-2019, the insurance company shall verify the data of the insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the bank independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the State Government, failing which no objection by the insurance company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the insurance company to pay the claim. In the present case, the insurance company had not informed or rectified the clerical mistake. The answering op had credited the premium amount in favour of op no.1, as such op no.1 is bound to pay the actual claim amount payable to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Puja Tapwal Incharge as Ex.R1 and operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R2, minutes of meeting Ex.R3. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex.R4.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. The complainant has placed on file letter/ report of Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa as Ex.C7 according to which the average yield of barley crop in Rabi 2018-2019 in village Mithi Sureran was 1033.25 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Ellenabad was 3424.50 Kgs. per hectare and as such it is proved on record that there was loss of barley crop of the complainant in Rabi 2018-2019 in village Mithi Sureran. The complainant had sown barley crop in his 2.428 hectare of land for which premium amount of Rs.1457.07 was deducted from his account for insurance of his barley crop in 2.428 hectare of land. The complainant has claimed insurance claim at the rate of Rs.11,700/- per acre for loss of barley crop as already paid to other farmers and has also placed on file pass books of Sh. Vakil Chander and Subhash as Ex.C4 and Ex.C5. As per Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018, the sum insured amount of Barley crop in Rabi 2018-2019 was Rs.40,500/- per hectare and as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the total amount payable to the complainant comes to Rs.68,664/- for the loss of his barley crop in his 2.428 hectares of land. The complainant has already been paid an amount of Rs.16,165/- by op no.1 insurance company. As such complainant is entitled to remaining insurance amount of Rs.52,500/- from op no.2 bank as due to mistake committed by op no.2 bank regarding village name of complainant, he has received only amount of Rs.16,165/- from op no.1 insurance company as insurance company has paid the claim on the basis of loss in village Thobria uploaded by op no.2 bank. The op no.2 bank is liable to pay the said remaining claim amount of Rs.52,500/- to the complainant due to negligence and deficiency in service as well as in view of operational guidelines of PMFBY as well as minutes of meeting relied upon by op no.1.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua op no.2 and direct the op no.2 bank to pay the remaining claim amount of Rs.52,500/- to the complainant for the loss of his barley crop within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.52,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op no.2 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.1 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President
Dt. 09.04.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
