Haryana

Kaithal

117/20

Rajmal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Manish Ghira

01 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.117/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 06.03.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:01.08.2023.

Rajmal son of Sh. Chandan, resident of Village Ramgarh Pandwa, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.

…Complainants.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kalayat, District Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.   
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal office at Room No. 305, Secretariat, Kaithal.

 

 

..OPs.

        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. Manish Ghira, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. R.K.Nagpal, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for the OP No.2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, Govt. Pleader for the OP No.3.

               

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Rajmal-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

1.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and owned agriculture land measuring 45 Kanal 06 Marla situated at revenue area of Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.  The complainant has an account No.08275111002157 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of Kharif (paddy) for the period 2018-19 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.3918/- on 30.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in that area on 23/24.09.2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and the loss of paddy crops was assessed upto the extent of 90% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land.  The complainant requested the OPs 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 OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            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.3918.82 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 30.07.2018 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.2, 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. 

4.             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 Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy Rain Fall” 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 complaint, the complainant is claiming for loss of paddy crop on land situated in the revenue area of Kalayat, District Kaithal.  However, as per data uploaded on NCI Portal by banker of complainant, the alleged land of Kalayat related to complainant is not insured under the scheme with the answering OP.  In fact, as per portal the land of Village Rohera, Tehsil Rajound, was insured in the name of complainant.  So, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.  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.  Moreover, under localized based claim, complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to answering OP within stipulated period of 48 hours of alleged loss to process the claim as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering OP.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             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

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C15 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R9 and OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R10 to Annexure-R12 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and owned agriculture land measuring 45 Kanal 06 Marla situated at revenue area of Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.  The complainant has an account No.08275111002157 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of Kharif (paddy) for the period 2018-19 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.3918/- on 30.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in that area on 23/24.09.2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and the loss of paddy crops was assessed upto the extent of 90% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land.  The complainant requested the OPs 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 OPs.

9.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has argued that the premium amount of Rs.3918.82 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 30.07.2018 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.2, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any. 

10.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-Insurance Company has argued that in the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for loss of paddy crop on land situated in the revenue area of Kalayat, District Kaithal.  However, as per data uploaded on NCI Portal by banker of complainant, the alleged land of Kalayat related to complainant is not insured under the scheme with the answering OP.  In fact, as per portal the land of Village Rohera, Tehsil Rajound, was insured in the name of complainant.  So, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. In this regard, ld. counsel for the OP No.2-insurance company has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank etc. Vs. Singam Siva Sankar Reddy etc. 2015(4) CLT 545 decided by Hon’ble National Commission and Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. Vs. Sri Chikkala Satyanarayana, 2017(4) CPJ 1 decided by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission.          

11.            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.   

12.            The main contention of ld. counsel for the OP No.2-insurance company is that as per portal the land of Village Rohera, Tehsil Rajound, was insured in the name of complainant, whereas the complainant is claiming for loss of paddy crop on land situated in the revenue area of Kalayat.  He has burdened the liability upon the bank-OP No.1.  To rebut the said contention, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has vehemently contended that the Op No.1-bank had deducted the premium amount and remitted to OP No.2-isnurance company and premium was retained by the OP No.2, so, OP No.2 is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant.  He has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Irawali etc. decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 07.05.2014 bearing revision petition No.783 of 2008, wherein in para No.28 of the said judgment, it is mentioned that “Counsel for the petitioner failed to explain the provision, guidelines or scheme under which they had asked for provisional premium of Rs.60,000/-.  They also failed to explain how the money was kept in deposit till Jan., 2003.  It was not the bank who was taking insurance.  They had merely forward the premium amount on behalf of the respondent.  Counsel for petitioner could show no evidence that the respondents had been informed at any point of time that their proposal for insurance had not been accepted and the reasons thereof.”  The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case, whereas the authorities submitted by ld. counsel for the OP No.2 are not distinguishable but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case.   

            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”.  

13.            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 to the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his crop.

14.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9661.76 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 5.75 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.55,555/- (Rs.9661.76 paise x 5.75 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Insurance Company.        

15.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.55,555/- 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 against OP No.2-insurance company and dismissed against Ops No.1 & 3.     

16.            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.:01.08.2023.

 

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.