Haryana

Kaithal

165/20

Krishan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kirpal Singh

05 Sep 2023

ORDER

                       

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                Complaint No.    : 165/2020.

                                                Date of institution: 23.06.2020

                                                Date of decision: 05.09.2023.       

 

Krishan Kumar son of Shri Bharthu @ Bharat Singh resident of Village and post office Kheri Lamba, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kalayat, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch manager.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Kaithal Room No. 305, Secretariat, Kaithal.                                                                                                                                                                                                         ...Respondents.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection, Act.

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.   

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.                  

 

Present:     Sh. Kirpal Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh. O.P. Gulati, Advocate for OP No. 1.

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for OP No. 2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, G.P. for OP No. 3.

 

ORDER:

 

1.             Krishan Kumar, Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondents.

2.             It is alleged in the complaint that complainant is permanent resident of village and post office Kheri Lamba, Tehsil Kalayat District Kaithal and as per Jamabandi attached by complainant which shows that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned agricultural land measuring area 3.1 acre ( 24 Kanal 1 marla) comprised in Khewat No. 560 and Khatoni No. 795 situated at Village and post office Kheri Lamba, Tehsil Kalayat District, Kaithal.  He sown Kharif (Paddy) crop in the season of 2018-2019 and got insured his crop under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) for the year 2018-2019 with opposite party No. 2 i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and had also paid Rs. 1,788-38/- as premium amount for the same through his account No. 08275115003628 of Oriental Bank of Commerce. There were heavy rains in the area on 23/24.09.2018 due to which, his standing paddy crops was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OP No. 3 thereafter concerned official of OP No. 3 visited the flood affected area and assessed 80% damage of paddy crops. The officials assured the complainant to reimburse this loss within 1-2 months.  He visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but they failed to release the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their respective written statements.

4.             Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  OP No.1 filed the written version 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.1788.38/- was debited from KCC account of complainant and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.2/implementing  Agency in their account through Electronic Transfer bearing UTR Number ORBCH1822015876 on 31.07.2023, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

5.             OP No.2 filed the written version mentioning therein that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Kheri Lamba, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy Rain Fall” and as per records of answering respondent the admissible claim i.e. Yield loss in the sum of Rs.9,506/- has already been paid to the complainant in account No. 08275115003628 vide UTIR No. N220190271630467 on dated 08.08.2019 and nothing more is to be paid now. 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.

6.             OP 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 OP randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint

7.             The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents annexure C-1 to annexure C-3 and closed his evidence.

8.             On the other hand, OP No. 1, in order to support their case, tendered affidavit EX.RW1/A and documents annexure R19 to annexure R28 and closed its evidence. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents annexure R-4 and annexure R-18 closed the same. OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RW3/A and documents annexure R1 to annexure R3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No. 3

9.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

10.            Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned agricultural land measuring area 3.1 acre ( 24 Kanal 1 marla) comprised in Khewat No. 560 and Khatoni No. 795 situated at Village and post office Kheri Lamba, Tehsil Kalayat District, Kaithal.  He sown Kharif (Paddy) crop in the season of 2018-2019 and got insured his crop under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) for the year 2018-2019 with opposite party No. 2 i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and had also paid Rs. 1,788-38/- as premium amount for the same through his account No. 08275115003628 of Oriental Bank of Commerce. There were heavy rains in the area on 23/24.09.2018 due to which, his standing paddy crops was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OP No. 3 thereafter concerned official of OP No. 3 visited the flood affected area and assessed 80% damage of paddy crops. It is further argued that the officials assured the complainant to reimburse this loss within 1-2 months.  He visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but they failed to release the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has argued that the premium amount of Rs.1788.38/- was debited from KCC account of complainant and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.2/implementing  Agency in their account through Electronic Transfer bearing UTR Number ORBCH1822015876 on 31.07.2023, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any. 

12.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-Insurance Company has argued that as per records of answering respondent the admissible claim i.e. Yield loss in the sum of Rs.9,506/- has already been paid to the complainant in account No. 08275115003628 vide UTIR No. N220190271630467 on dated 08.08.2019 and nothing more is to be paid now.   

13.            Sh. Pushpinder Saini, 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.   

14.            As per pleadings and mortgage deed-Annexure-R2, the area insured was 24 Kanal 1 Marla which comes the land as approx. 3 acre.  So far the liability is concerned, if there was any discrepancy in the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) etc. of the farmers concerned, then it was required for the OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the said amount, within two months of cutoff date to the OP No.1 bank, but nothing has been done on the part of OP No.2 and this Commission rely upon in this regard on “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018” and its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii is relevant, which reads as under:-

“xxii) The Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks 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”.  

15.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was the required for OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmers concerned to OP No.1 bank after pointing out any discrepancy on its end, within the period of cut off date of two months, but in the case in hand, OP No.2 had neither raised any objection within the period of cutoff date of two months nor intimated to OP No.1 bank regarding any discrepancy in this regard and kept the premium amount with it, and now at the time when crops of complainant was destroyed and he is demanding the claim amount, as per policy from it, then OP No.2 refused to pay the same on this flimsy ground, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. As such, the OP No.2 insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his crop.

16.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9504/- per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 3 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.28,512/- (Rs.9504/- x 3 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Insurance Company.        

17.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.28,512/- after deducting the amount of Rs.9506/- which the Op No.2-Insurance Company has already paid to the complainant through Op No.1-bank on 08.08.2019, which becomes the balance amount of Rs.19,006/- 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 against OP No.2-insrance company and dismissed against OPs No.1 & 3.     

18.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP 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.:05.09.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.