Haryana

Kaithal

264/20

Khazan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.K.L Sharma

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.264 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 28.08.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:20.03.2023.

Khazan Singh S/o Sh. Moli Ram, resident of Village Sega, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Kaithal, Office at Room No.305, Secretariat, Kaithal.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

               

Present:     Sh. K.L.Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Singh, GP for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Khazan Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned 23 Kanal 14 marla (Approximately 3 acre) detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.00455115010672 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.1762.97 paise on 16.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 23 and 24 September, 2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to respondent No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of respondent No.2 and the loss of paddy crops was assessed upto the extent of 25-30%, 35-40% of farmers.  The complainant requested the respondents to pay the claim amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  Respondent No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the premium amount of Rs.1762.97 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 16.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018 (Paddy) and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account through Electronic transfer bearing UTR No.-ORBCH18226024715 on 13.08.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Soft copy of consolidated detailed list of farmers/proposals/declarations pertaining to different villages (who were loanee farmer of respondent No.1 bank) including that of present complainant were prepared/uploaded on PMFBY Portal within prescribed time/cut off date by respondent No.1 and such consolidated proposal/list of farmers/declaration were also submitted to respondent No.2 well within time.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondents No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that as per record, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Sega, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Rain Water Logging” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme and to prove the same, no documentary proof of any kind has been annexed with the complaint; that role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institutions that are part of this scheme.  In the present case, the complainant is claiming for paddy crop of Village Sega, Distt. Kaithal.  As per yield data of village Sega provided by Govt., actual yield is more than the threshold yield, hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company and the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.  However, it is made clear 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 or other institution, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Respondent No.3 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the fields of complainant as-well-as other farmers were inspected by the officials of answering respondent randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Annexure-A to Annexure-P and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R4 to Annexure-R10, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R11 to Annexure-R19 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned 23 Kanal 14 marla (Approximately 3 acre) detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It has been further argued that the complainant has sown the paddy crops in his agriculture land measuring 23 Kanals 14 Marla for the year 2018 and the complainant availed/obtained Krishi Credit Card from the OP No.1 vide account No.00455115010672.  It has been further argued that the respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.1762.97 paise on 16.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It has been further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 23 and 24 September, 2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  It has been further argued that the complainant instantly reported the matter to respondent No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of respondent No.2 and the loss of paddy crops was assessed upto the extent of 25-30%, 35-40% of farmers.  The complainant requested the respondents to pay the claim amount but they did not do so.

9.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has argued that the premium amount of Rs.1762.97 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 16.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018 (Paddy) and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account through Electronic transfer bearing UTR No.-ORBCH18226024715 on 13.08.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  It has been further argued that the deficiency if any, is on the part of OP No.2.

10.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-Insurance Company has argued that as per yield data of village Sega provided by Govt., actual yield is more than the threshold yield, hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company and the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.  It has been further argued that no intimation was given by the complainant for localized claim.  Hence, complainant is not entitled for any loss. 

11.            Sh. Pushpinder Singh, GP for the OP No.3-Agriculture Department has stated that the claim does not arise on average yield because in the present case, average yield is greater than threshold yield.  He has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT at the time of arguments, which is Mark-A on the file.    

12.            The main contention of ld. counsel for the OP No.2-Insurance Company is that there was no intimation regard loss to the Insurance Company, so, the complainant is not entitled for any loss.  To rebut the said contention, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the letter written by Agriculture Department to Insurance Company as per Annexure ‘K’ wherein it is clearly mentioned that some farmers of Village Sega had given the intimation regarding loss of crop and on the basis of which, the Agriculture Department had got conducted the survey of Village Sega and on the basis of survey, the claim becomes due on localized basis.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5384.96 paise per acre which becomes Rs.673/- per kanal.  Hence, for 23 Kanal 14 Marla loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.15,953/- (Rs.15,482/- for 23 Kanal+Rs.471/- for 14 marla).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Insurance Company.         

13.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.15,953/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  The OP No.2-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.     

14.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent No.2 shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.03.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.