Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/262/2019

Ramesh Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Kaushik

30 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                Complaint Case No. : 262 of 2019

                                                                Date of Institution    : 21.05.2019

                                                                Date of decision:      : 30.05.2024

 

Ramesh Chander Kaushik son of Sh. Hari Chand Kaushik R/o village Umrawat and biswedar village Golagarh, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. having its branch at Ghanta Ghar, Chowk, Bhiwani through its Manager.

 

2. Allahabad Bank, Chugh Hospital Complex, Circular Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

 

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Naveen Kaushik, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Mukesh Jangra, Advocate for OP No.1.

Sh. Ravinder Kumar Punia, Advocate for OP No.2.

  

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant having 58 kanals agriculture land in village Golagarh and he sown cotton crop for the season Kharif 2018 and crop of complainant was insured by OP No.1 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yajana (PMFBY) by paying premium of Rs.4262/- which deducted by OP No.2 from his bank account on 31.07.2018. It is alleged that crop of complainant destroyed due to heavy rain and caused him loss of Rs.2.00 lac. So, claim was lodged by complainant with OP competing all formalities but the claim was repudiated by the OPs on grounds that paddy crop was insured by the OP company whereas cotton crop was sown.  Hence, the present complaint has been filed by complainant alleging monetary loss besides mental and physical harassment.  In the end, directions has been sought against the OPs to pay Rs.2.00 lac alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, further to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation on account of harassment besides Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit, has also been sought.

 2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, locus standi, cause of action, deficiency in service and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that as per particulars uploaded by the OP bank on NCIP, paddy crop of complainant (Account No.50372947568) was sown in 2.9 hectare situated at village Umrawat, Block Bhiwani, District Bhiwani and was insured, if there was is any misreporting or wrong information has been uploaded by the bank then concerned bank can only be liable.  Further, as per data provided by the State Govt. for paddy crop of Umrawat village, there was no yield loss.  It is submitted that the cotton crop of complainant situated at village Golagarh was not insured as the bank has uploaded paddy crop of complainant shown in land situated at Umrawat, not cotton crop of complainant shown in land situated at Golagarh.  It is urged that as per provisions of PMFBY, in cases where farmers are denied crop insurance due to incorrect/partial/non-uploading of their details on portal, concerned banks/intermediaries shall be responsible for payment of claims to them.  In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.2 filed its written statement raising preliminary objections qua cause of action, locus standi, maintainability of complaint, deficiency in service and concealment of true facts. On merits, it is submitted that complainant mortgaged his agriculture land measuring 57 kanals 5 marlas with OP and a sum of Rs.4262.71p. was paid by the answering OP to OP No.1 insurance company as premium for crop insurance.  Further, complainant never submitted crop claim with it. It is urged that crop of complainant was insured with OP No.1, as such, no negligence can be attributed against it. In the end, prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                 In evidence of complainant, his affidavit Ex. PW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 were tendered and closed the evidence.

5.                 On the other side, Leaned counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Divisional Manager as Ex. RW1/A  alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-9 and closed the evidence.

6.                 Leaned counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of  Sh. Zile Singh, Branch Manager, as Ex. RW2/A  alongwith document Ex. R-1 and closed the evidence.

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

8.                 Complainant in order to prove his ownership over the alleged land has placed on record copy of jambandi for the year 2013-2014 (Annexure C-8) and that he sown cotton crop in the land has placed on record khasra girdawari (Annexure C-1) and further that insurance premium of Rs.6599.38p. was deducted from his account vide bank pass book details (Annexure C-2). 

9.                 Learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that as per particulars uploaded by the OP bank on NCIP, paddy crop of complainant was sown in 2.9 hectare at village Umrawat and was insured. As per data provided by the State Govt. for paddy crop of Umrawat village, there was no yield loss.  It is submitted that the cotton crop of complainant situated at village Golagarh was not insured as the bank has uploaded paddy crop of complainant shown in land situated at Umrawat, not cotton crop of complainant shown in land situated at Golagarh.  It is urged that as per provisions of PMFBY, in cases where farmers are denied crop insurance due to incorrect/partial/non-uploading of their details on portal, concerned banks/intermediaries shall be responsible for payment of claims to them and denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10.               Learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the crop of complainant was insured with OP No.1 insurance company and thus it is liable to compensation the complainant in case of any damage to his crop. The counsel denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it. 11.                   From the record, it reveals that land of complainant is situated at village Golagarh but due to misreporting by OP No.2 while uploading the particulars of land etc. on National Crop Insurance Portal, the land was shown at village Umrawat, which is negligence on the part of OP Bank.
As such, we observe deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 Bank, therefore, it is liable to compensate the complainant. It is also worthwhile to mention here that OP No.1 insurance company on receiving the mis-match data pertaining to land of complainant should have corroborated the same with other relevant documents submitted for insurance but it has not done anything of such sort. Further, the OP insurance company not refunded the premium amount to the complainant, therefore, in view of the above, we think that OP No.2 insurance company is also equally liable to compensate the complainant as he has got loss to his crop and thereby caused monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment.  From the record on file, other farmers of village Golagarh have received compensation for loss to their crops. As per notification of Agriculture Department (Annexure R-1), the sum insured per hectare of notified crops of cotton was Rs.72,000/- in the relevant year. As such, rate for per acre of cotton was Rs.28,800/-. As per record, complainant had sown cotton crop in 58 kanals of land during the season kharif 2018, so he is entitled to Rs.2,08,800/-.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OPs No.1 & 2, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.2,08,800/- (Rs. Two lac eight thousand eight hundred) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand) as compensation on account of harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default.                               If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite parties may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated:30.05.2024