BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.257 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 25.09.2018.

                                                     Date of decision:09.10.2019.

Malkhan Singh, S/o Sh. Nar Singh, r/o Village Bhuna, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, C/o Dhan Laxmi Oil Mill, Kaithal Road, Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, SCO No.145 to 148, Sector-9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Officer in Haryana at City Centre, Ist Floor, Opposite IB College, near Karur Vyasya Bank, G.T.Road, Panipat (Haryana) through its Branch Manager.
4. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No.103, Secretariat, Kaithal.

                        ..Ops.

Before:      Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

                Smt. Suman Rana, Member.

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

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

                Sh. C.L.Uppal, Adv. for Op No.2.

                Op No.3 exparte.

                Sh. Lav Jindal, ADA for Op No.4.

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 situated at Village Bhuna Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.00525115007141 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 Ops No.2 & 3 and deducted an amount of Rs.7769.69 paise in the name of ‘INSURANCE RABI’ from the account of complainant.  It is further alleged that in Rabi Season of 2017 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 “Hail Storm & Inundation”.  The complainant reported the matter to Op No.4, who in return inspected the agricultural field of complainant and assessed 70%-80% 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 No.1, 2 & 4 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.3 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 20.12.2018.  Ops No.1, 2 & 4 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 amount of premium in the sum of Rs.5,91,586.26 paise alongwith list of loanee farmers (Including the complainant) was paid to Op No.2 on 31.12.2016 through RTGS for coverage of Rabi crops during the year 2016-17 and surprisingly now after expiry of statutory period of insurance, the Op No.2 wants to refund the premium after a long gap of more than one year and for this purpose had sent repeated mails to answering Op, hence deficiency if any is on the part of Op No.2; that 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.

3.             Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections that the crop of complainant was not insured under crop season, 2016 for “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” in District Kaithal of Haryana State as per record of insurance company and present complaint lacks for privity of contract which does not fall under definition of consumer disputes in absence of any contract of insurance and consideration; that as per Operational Guidelines, the bank has to mandatory submit premium to the insurance company alongwith declaration form of the farmers but declaration form of farmer having details of insured unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area of insured of farmer etc. were never supplied by concerned bank and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for mistake done by bank or complainant himself.  It is settled proposition of law that contract of insurance cannot be booked unless details of insurance is submitted to insurance company.  Moreover, it was the duty of bank to submit requisite details of farmer alongwith premium for the purpose of booking of insurance contract in the record of insurance company; that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum because the complainant has approached this Forum with bad intention even without approaching to grievance cell of Govt. agencies as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme.  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.4 filed the reply and evasively denied all the facts contained in the complaint and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

5.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C19 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R18, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R19 to Annexure R27 and thereafter, closed the evidence.  Op No.4 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW4/A 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.00525115007141 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 Ops No.2 & 3 and deducted an amount of Rs.7769/- on 31.12.2016, as is clear from the statement of account Annexure-C3 and paid the same to the OP No.2 towards PMFBY.  According to the complainant, his wheat crop was damaged due to ‘Hailstorm & Inundation’.  Intimation regarding loss was given to the Op No.4 as is clear from Annexure C5 and vide Annexure C6, it is admitted by the Agriculture Department that the date of receipt of intimation was 27.01.2017.  According to the complainant, the committee of Agriculture Department inspected the fields of complainant and assessed the loss.  The complainant requested many times  to OPs  to make the compensation/claim/insured payment of his wheat crops, but the OPs denied his claim as mentioned in the e-mail (though not exhibited by the complainant) on the remarks as under:-

        “1. Firstly, the above KCC nos. are not traceable in RABI-2016 insured database.

        2. The remittance which was received from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Cheeka Branch, was without farmer declaration and proposal forms.

        3. Several contacts and telephonic communication held with the concerned banker, but it failed to provide the requisite declaration and proposal form copies before the cut-off date for submission on insured documentation in Rabi-2016 season, which against the operating guidelines of PMFBY.  Even till date they have not shared any documentation of farmer list against which the remittance was being sent to RGICL.

        4. As no declaration and farmer list was shared with RGICL, no policy was booked for farmers of OBC, Cheeka Branch.

        5. We have numerous times requested the said branch manager/officer to provide NEFT details for returning the said remittance, so that the deducted premium shall be credited back to aggrieved farmers.  But still the matter is not being address by them”.

9.               On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Op No.2 contended that as per Operational Guidelines, the bank has to mandatory submit premium to the insurance company alongwith declaration form of the farmers but declaration form of farmer having details of insured unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area of insured of farmer etc. were never supplied by concerned bank and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for mistake done by bank or complainant himself. 

10.            We have perused the letter dt. 07.11.2017 written by the Op No.1 to Op No.2, Annexure R-3, wherein it is mentioned as under:-

i)      Total insurance amount paid from their bank on 31.12.2016: Rs.5,91,586.26 paise.

        ii)      TO: Reliance General Insurance. UTR No.ORBC16366070262

        iii)     No. of farmers from whom premium was deducted is: 346                members.

                   We have also perused the document Annexure R20 where from it is clear that a list of 346 farmers including the complainant was sent by the Op No.1 to Op No.2.  So, from perusal of all the record available on the file, it is clear that amount of premium in the sum of Rs.5,91,586.26 alongwith list of farmers was paid by Op No.1 to the Op No.2 on 31.12.2016 through RTGS vide UTR No.ORBC16366070262.  Moreover, the Op No.2 gave notice to Op No.1 on 14.11.2017, as is clear from Annexure-R4, whereas the loss of complainant was occurred on 26.01.2017.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the Op No.1 submitted copy of order dt. 10.04.2019 titled as Sukhwinder Singh Vs. OBC passed by this Forum and copy of order dt. 19.07.2019 passed by Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sukhwinder Singh bearing first appeal No.528 of 2019.  The order titled as Sukhwinder Singh Vs. OBC etc. (supra) was passed by this Forum on the same footings vide which the said complaint was allowed by this Forum against the Reliance General Insurance Company-Op No.2.  Aggrieved with the said order of this Forum, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. filed the appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble State Commission vide order dt. 19.07.2019 dismissed the appeal.  Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 rather it is Ops No.2 & 3, who are deficient.  The complainant did not produce his survey report.  As per “OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES”, Clause-X1: Assessment of Loss/Shortfall in Yield produced by the Op No.2, essential part of which is mentioned as under:-

              2. CCEs shall be undertaken per unit area of insurance per crop, on a sliding scale, as indicated below:

                The complainant produced five survey reports of other farmers namely Kehar Singh, Jangir Singh, Satpal Singh, Sudan and Rajesh of the same village Bhuna Annexure-R10 to Annexure-R16.  We have perused the letter written by SDO Bhuna to SDAO Cheeka Annexure-C8 vide which the loss assessment report of all the above-said farmers alongwith some other farmers was sent and the committee assessed the loss in the fields of Kehar Singh as 40-50%, in the fields of Jangir Singh as 50-60%, in the fields of Satpal Singh as 30-40%, Sudan as 50-60% and in the fields of Rajesh as 70-80%.  So, taking into consideration of all these reports, the average of loss comes approximately 50%.  The complainant got insured his wheat crops in 11.3925 hectare of land and the insured amount was Rs. Rs.55,000/- per hectare.  As per application given by the complainant to the office of Deputy Director Agriculture Department Annexure-C2, the complainant suffered loss in 8.09 hectares.  In this way, the complainant is entitled for Rs.27,500/- per hectare (Rs.55,000x50%) and the total loss comes to Rs.2,22,475/- (Rs.27,500/-x 8.09 hectare).       

11.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint against the Ops No.2 & 3 and direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to pay Rs.2,22,475/- to the complainant.  We further direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. 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.:09.10.2019.  

                                                                        (D.N.Arora)

                                                                        President.

(Suman Rana),           (Rajbir Singh)         

Member                             Member.