Haryana

Karnal

CC/188/2019

Dharam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Malkhan Singh

05 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 188 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.08.04.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:05.01.2023

 

Dharam Singh aged about 55 years son of Ram Singh, resident of village Anjanthali, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Oriental Bank of Commerce, Taraori Tehsil Nilokheri District   Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. having its branch office at  2^nd floor, SCO no.156, 159 Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009 through its Branch Manager.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Malkhan Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Manjeet Singh, counsel for the OP no.1.

                   Shri Rohit Gupta, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

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 consumer of the OP no.1 as he is having a bank account with OP no.1 which is bearing no.05915111002902. The complainant is also the consumer of OP no.2 as his agriculture produce is insured with OP no.2 through OP no.1. Complainant is farmer and is owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 258K-9M i.e.32/1/02 acres situated in village Anjanthali, Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal. As per the policy of Government, the crop sown by the complainant in his aforesaid land was insured by the complainant from OP no.2 through OP no.1 under Pardhanmantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The OP no.1 deducted an amount of Rs.11616/- from the account of the complainant on 29.12.2017. Similarly the crop of many farmers of the village of the complainant was also insured by the bank. The kharif 2017 crop of the complainant and other inhabitants of the vicinity was damaged and all the farmers lodged their claim with their respective banks and most of the farmers have been paid compensation by the insurance company @ Rs.5000/- per acre but the OP no.2 has refused to pay any compensation to the complainant by alleged that the OP has not uploaded the name of the complainant on their portal. The mistake, if any is on the part of the OP no.1 and as such complainant cannot be penalized for the same. The complainant wrote several letters and reminders to the OPs for making payment of the compensation amount of his 32/1//2 acres of land which comes to Rs.162500/- but nothing has been done by the OPs. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version stating therein that OP has debited premium of Rs.11616/- on 29.12.2017 for kharif PMFBY 2017 in name of Dharam Singh and same was remitted to insurance company by RTGS UTR no.ORBCH18015085189 dated 15.01.2018 but insurance company failed to inform the OP regarding excess premium paid. It is responsibility of the insurance company to inform to OP in time for any issue. So, it is duty of the insurance company to pay the claim as demanded by the complainant.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that after scrutinizing documents submitted by the complainant, it has been observed that, though for kharif 2017 the booking was done on the basis of the farmer details available in the PMFBY Government portal of the farmer as uploaded by the bank. However, in the instant case, the farmer details i.e. the details of the complainant have not been provided by the bank in the given cut off data and the bank will be liable to pay for such claims as per the decision of SLGC (State Level Grievance Committee). The excess premium of Rs.28491/- on 22.03.2019, vide UTR no. NEFT Out UTR CITIN 19942713701 TRF to Oriental Bank of Commerce was refunded by the OP. Hence, in case of no premium received by the OP, the complainant has no contract with OP nor he is consumer of OP. It is further pleaded that in case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting. Since the bank has not provided requisite details hence the liability of any claim arising out of them lies with the bank. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C1, copy of application by complainant to Deputy Commissioner regarding compensation under PMFBY Ex.C2, copy of application to bank regarding payment of compensation under PMFBY Ex.C3, copy of email of insurance company dated 05.02.2019 Ex.C4, copy of email of insurance company dated 07.02.2019 regarding denial of the compensation Ex.C5, copy of UTR Ex.C6, copy of passbook of complainant Ex.C7, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2014-2015 Ex.C8, copy of bank statement Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 19.03.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             Learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sudhir Verma, Manager Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 04.07.2022.

7.             Learned counsel for OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Saurav Khullar, Senior Executive Ex.OP2/A, copy of operational guidelines under PMFBY Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 14.11.2022.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 had debited the insurance premium from the account of complainant for the year 2017 and same was remitted in the account of OP no.2. Due to natural disaster (heavy rainfall) in the area, the crop of complainant was badly damaged in the year 2017. He further argued that most of the farmer of his village have received the compensation @ Rs.5000/- per acre from the insurance company. He further argued that OP no.2 had refused to pay the insurance claim to complainant on the ground that OP no.1 has not uploaded the name of complainant on their portal. Complainant requested the OP no.2 several times to make the payment of compensation, but they failed to pay the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.2 argued that OP has debited premium of Rs.11616/- on 29.12.2017 for kharif PMFBY 2017 in name of Dharam Singh and same was remitted to insurance but insurance company failed to inform the OP regarding excess premium paid. So, it is duty of the insurance company to pay the claim as demanded by the complainant.

11.           Learned counsel for OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the details of the complainant have not been provided by the bank in the given cut off data and the bank will be liable to pay for such claims as per the decision of SLGC (State Level Grievance Committee). The excess premium of Rs.28491/- was refunded by the OP. In this case, no premium received by the OP, so the complainant has no contract with OP nor he is consumer of OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.2.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land and the crop of the complainant was insured with the OP no.2 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. It is also an admitted that the insurance premium was duly deducted from the account of the complainant by OP no.1 and this fact is also proved from the statement of account of complainants Ex.C9.

14.           As per the version of the complainants their paddy crop was totally damaged due to heavy rainfall and in this regard they had intimated to OPs and applied for compensation. Complainant has also taken a plea that the land owners of surrounding areas were paid the loss/damages of the kharif crop 2017 directly into their account but nothing was paid to the complainant. The Onus to prove to his version lies upon the complainant, but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence.

15.           There is nothing on the file to prove that the crop of the complainant has been damaged due to heavy rainfall and complainant has intimated the Agriculture Department as well as OPs in this regard. There is also nothing on file to prove that complainant has submitted the claim with the OPs as alleged by him. The premium of Rs.28491/- was refunded by the OP to the complainant. Hence, present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed.

16.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we found no merits in the complaint and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:05.01.2023

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

      Member                       Member

 

Sushma

Stenographer