BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.76 of 2019.
Date of institution: 14.03.2019.
Date of decision:07.02.2020.
Kashmir Singh S/o Pritam Singh, aged 60 years, resident of Village Dussain, Tehsil Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Oriental Bank of Commerce, Pundri through its Branch Manager, Pundri, near Anaj Mandi, Pundri, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through its General Manager, 2nd Floor, SCO No.145 to 148, Sector-9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
- Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No.103, Secretariat, Kaithal.
..Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. J.S.Pannu, Advocate, for the complainant.
Smt. Sanjam Dhanda, Adv. for the Op No.1.
Sh. C.L.Uppal, Adv. for Op No.2.
Smt. Ruchika, SA, Reprt. for Op No.3.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned agriculture land having approximately 64 kanals 0 marla situated at Village Dussain, Distt. Kaithal. It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.07495110003150 with the Op No.1 and the Op No.1 had insured the crop of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2016-17 with the Op No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.2207/- in the name of ‘INSURANCE RABI’ from the account of complainant. It is further alleged that in Rabi Season of 2016 the complainant had sown wheat crop upon these agriculture land but due to untimely heavy rainfall, the wheat crop of complainant was damaged/ruined due to “Rainwater lodging”. The complainant reported the matter to Op No.3 and the team of Agriculture Department inspected the agricultural field of complainant and assessed 90% damage of wheat crop. The complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.2 but the Op No.2 did not settle the claim of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately. Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the answering Op has nothing to do with the working of Op No.2 and complainant; that the complainant himself got his crops insured from the Op No.2, hence deficiency if any is on the part of Op No.2. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections that as per complaint, the loss of wheat crop has been effected at Village Dussain which has not been insured by the insurance company. As per declaration form submitted by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Village Kangthali was insured with the insurance company for wheat crop, whereas the complainant is claiming for village Dussain which is not covered under the policy scheme and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on both the grounds of non coverage of village and non coverage of crop as well; that the insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint
4. Op No.3 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the farmer did not give any intimation to the answering Op of damage in the crop. However, the claim arise on the basis of average yield and the average yield is observed 3148.11 Kg. per Hectare while threshold yield is 4208.4 Kg. per Hectare. Hence, the claim arises Rs.13,856/- per hectare. The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A, the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2, Op No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and document Annexure-R1 and thereafter closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
8. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant has an account No.07495110003150 with the Op No.1 and the Op No.1 had insured the crop of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2016-17 with the Op No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.2207/- on 10.01.2017 from the account of complainant, as is clear from statement of account Annexure-C2. According to the complainant, in Rabi Season of 2016 the complainant had sown wheat crop upon these agriculture land but due to untimely heavy rainfall, the wheat crop of complainant was damaged/ruined due to “Rainwater lodging”. The complainant reported the matter to Op No.3 and the team of Agriculture Department inspected the agricultural field of complainant and assessed 90% damage of wheat crop.
8. During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the Op No.2-Insurance Company submitted the copy of declaration form-Loanee farmers from which it is clear that the Op no.1 has submitted a consolidated demand draft No.378182 dt. 11.01.2017 for the sum of Rs.1,91,129/- alongwith the name of complainant to the Op No.2. From the said declaration form, it is clear that the OP No.1 has wrongly reported the name of village as Kangthali instead of Dussain. We have perused the statement of account of complainant bearing account No.07495110003150, Annexure-C2 wherein the complainant’s village name is shown as Dussain. So, from the said statement of account, Annexure-C2, it is clear that the complainant belongs to village Dussain, but the OP No.1 has wrongly reported the name of village of complainant as Kangthali instead of Dussain.
9. The OP No.2 further produced copy of Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and stated that its sub-Clause 2 of Clause XVII “Important Conditions/Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks”, is relevant, which reads as under:-
“In case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the covered bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting”.
In view of above circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP No.1 has wrongly reported the name of village of the complainant to the OP No.2 and keeping in view the Operational Guidelines mentioned above, for this mis-reporting, the OP No.1 is liable to pay the claim of the complainant, if any.
10. Now the question arises that whether the complainant has suffered any loss and whether the said loss was covered under the insurance policy in question?
The onus to prove the loss was upon the complainant. To prove the same, the complainant produced Performa-B/Annexure-C4, which is village-wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY for Rabi 2016-17 and the complainant contended that the loss of village Dussain was Rs.13,856/- per acre. So far the loss is concerned, the crop in 3.2374912 hectare of land of the complainant was insured for Rs.1,78062.02 paise. It is also clear as per survey report dt. 30.04.2018 Annexure-R1 that the loss was occurred as Rs.13,856/- per hectare in the village Dussain. In this way, the complainant is entitled for Rs.44,858.67 paise i.e. to say Rs.44,859/- (Rs.13,856/-x3.2374912). Since the insurance company has denied the claim of complainant on the ground that the farmer was insured for village Kangthali although crop was damaged in the village Dussain. It is not disputed that the premium amount has been credited in the account of insurance company and they are liable to refund the amount. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the bank has sent the premium amount of Rs.2207/- to the insurance company but the insurance company has withheld the premium amount and they have denied the claim of complainant. The premium amount was sent for the village Kanghtali and crop was damaged in village Dussain. So, the insurance company is not liable to pay the loss suffered by the complainant but the said premium amount is lying with the account of insurance company and till date they have not refunded the same to the bank or the complainant. Although they were duty bound to return the premium amount to the bank or the complainant. So, the Op No.2 is liable to return the premium amount of Rs.2207/- to the bank which was deposited on 11.01.2017 as per the record produced by the insurance company.
11. Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.44,859/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.3300/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. We further direct the Op No.2 to return the premium amount of Rs.2207/- to the bank alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 11.01.2017 till its realization. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. for the defaulted period. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:07.02.2020.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
