Haryana

Kaithal

70/21

Luxmi Narain Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Karan Kalra

17 Jul 2023

ORDER

                     

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                Complaint No.:    70 of 2021.

                                                Date of institution: 17.03.2021

                                                Date of decision:17.07.2023.        

 

Luxmi Narain Rana @ Randhir Singh son of Sh. Nar Singh resident of Village Bhuna, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, C/o Dhan Laxmi Oil Mill, Kaithal  Road, Cheeka, Tehsil Ghula, District Kaithal.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jagadhari Road, LIC Building Ambala Cantt.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No. 103, Secretariat, Kaithal.
4. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager. 

                                                                                                                                                                ...Respondents.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection, Act,2019

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.   

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.                  

 

Present:     Shri Karan Kalra, Advocate. for the complainant.

                Opposite Party No.1 ex parte.

                Shri Sudeep Malik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2 and 4.

                Shri Pushpinder Saini, Govt. Pleader for OP No. 3.

 

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

1.             Luxmi Narain Rana @ Randhir Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereifafter referred to as the Act) against the respondents.

2.             It is alleged in the complaint that complainant is permanent resident of village Bhuna Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal and as per Jamabandi duly attested by concerned Patwari, Tehsil Guhla, Distrit Kaithal is showing that the 32 acres of land was inspected in that village. He was also having its account with OP No.1 bearing account No.00525115007183. He sown Rice Crops in the season of 2018 in his said 32 acres land and got insured the same under the scheme Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) from OP No.1 through OPs No.2 and 3 and deduct an mount amount of Rs.16,943.52/-in the name of Insurance Kharif from the account of complainant on 30.07.2018. There were heavy rains in the area during the period, due to which, his standing crops was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OPs and a team consisting of Block Agriculture Development Officer along with coordinator of OP No.2 visited the flood affected area and assessed 70-80% damage of paddy crop in these 8.09 hectare i.e. around 32 acres. 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.             OP No.1 already ex parte vide order dated 23.04.2021.

5.             OPs No. 2 and 4 in their written statement specifically stated that the complainant is not insured with the answering respondents. In the present complaint, the complainant is allegedly claiming for loss paddy crops of village Bhuna which was allegedly insured through respondents No. 1 Bank. In fact as per yield data (Area wise data) provided by Agricultural Department (Haryana govt.), the actual yield is more than the threshold yield, (Ay is 4385.84055 and TY is 3742.2) hence nothing is payable by the insurance company and as regards localized claim, as per survey report, final area affected has been shown as hence localized claim was also not payable.  There is no deficiency in service on their part; therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.  

6.             The OP No.3, in its written statement 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.  

7.             The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents annexure C-1 to annexure C-15 and closed his evidence.

8.             On the other hand, OPs No. 2 and 4, in order to support their case, tendered affidavit EX.RW2/A along with documents annexure R-1  to annexure R-13 and closed its evidence. OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents annexure R14 to annexure R17 closed the same. OP No.1 already ex parte vide order dated 23.04.2021.

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 as per Jamabandi duly attested by concerned Patwari, Tehsil Guhla, Distrit Kaithal is showing that the 32 acres of land was inspected in that village. The complainant was also having its account with OP No.1 bearing account No.00525115007183. He sown Rice Crops in the season of 2018 in his said 32 acres land and got insured the same under the scheme Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) from OP No.1 through OPs No.2 and 3 and deduct an mount amount of Rs.16,943.52/-in the name of Insurance Kharif from the account of complainant on 30.07.2018. There were heavy rains in the area during the period, due to which, his standing crops was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OPs and a team consisting of Block Agriculture Development Officer along with coordinator of OP No.2 visited the flood affected area and assessed 70-80% damage of paddy crop in these 8.09 hectare i.e. around 32 acres. 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 OPs No.2 & 4 has argued that the complainant is allegedly claiming for loss paddy crops of village Bhuna which was allegedly insured through respondents No. 1 Bank. In fact as per yield data (Area wise data) provided by Agricultural Department (Haryana govt.), the actual yield is more than the threshold yield, (Ay is 4385.84055 and TY is 3742.2) hence nothing is payable by the insurance company and as regards localized claim, as per survey report, final area affected has been shown as hence localized claim was also not payable. 

12.            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.   

13.            In the present case, the complainant has occurred loss in 30 acres, as is clear from the report of Agriculture Department.  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 OPs No.2 & 4 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 OPs No.2 & 4 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”.  

14.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was the required for OPs No.2 & 4  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, OPs No.2 & 4 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 OPs No.2 & 4  refused to pay the same on this flimsy ground, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 4. As such, the OPs No.2 & 4-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.

15.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3896.64 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 30 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.1,16,899/- (Rs.3896.64 paise x 30 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 4-Insurance Company.        

16.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OPs No.2 & 4-insurance company to pay Rs.1,16,899/- 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 OPs No.2 & 4-Insurance Company are 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 OPs No.2 & 4-insurance company and dismissed against Ops No.1 & 3.     

17.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OPs No.2 & 4 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.:17.07.2023.  

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.