Haryana

Kaithal

100/21

Subhsh Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.K.S Jangra

29 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No.           100 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:    06.04.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:       29.02.2024.

 

Subhash Chand s/o Shri Ram Dass, r/o H.No.488/13, Gali No.Zero, Amargarh Gamri, Kaithal & Biswedar of village Kheri Raowali, District Kaithal.

 

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                      Versus

 

1. Oriental Bank of Commerce now Punjab National Bank, Pehowa Chowk, Ambala Road, Kaithal.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company, 3^rd Floor, Agro Mall, Sector-20, Panchkula-134117, through its Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Mini Secretariat, Kaithal.

...Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:    SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri K.S. Jangra, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Amit Kaushik, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2.

                   Shri Sunil Kumar, SA, Rep. for Opposite Party No.3.

                  

ORDER     -     NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

             The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that he is an agriculturist by profession having 8 acres of land situated in village Kheri Raowali. That he has an account No.00455111013973 with OP No.1 for the last more than 10 years, who got insured his rabi 2019-20 crop under the Government scheme Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) with OP No.2 by deducting Rs.2584.86 on 13.12.2019 from his said account. That during the rabi 2019-20 season, he sown wheat crop in his said land, but due to untimely heavy rainfall, hailstorm and logging of heavy rainy water in his fields in the month of Feb-March 2020, the wheat crop was badly damaged/ruined. That he reported the matter to OPs on 16.03.2020 and officials of OP No.3 surveyed his fields and assessed 30% damage to his wheat crop of 8 acres of land. That he requested the OPs various times to pay the claim amount, but they did not do, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.    

3.             Upon notice, all OPs appeared before this Commission and filed their respective written statements.

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement has specifically stated that to implement the scheme of PMFBY, premium amount of Rs.2584.86 was debited from the KCC account of complainant on 13.12.2019 for rabi fasal and later on consolidated premium including the premium of complainant was remitted the account of OP No.2 along with premium amount of other farmers.

5.                OP No.2, in its written statement stated that as far as localized claim are concerned, it is specifically mentioned here that the intimation of crop loss due to hailstorm submitted by the complainant farmer on 08.3.2020 was rejected because the complainant farmer did not mention specific land survey numbers in crop loss intimation on which insured crops were sown. Thus, no localized claim became payable to the complainant-farmer. That as there was shortfall in the yield of wheat crop in the notified area Kheri Raowali (64), thus the area approach claim of Rs.20533.08 has already been paid to the complainant farmer on 08.10.2020 as per PMFBY scheme provisions.

6.                OP No.3, in its written statement stated that in khariff season 2018-19 and damaging the same due to rain. The OP never assured to reimburse for the loss to the complainant.

7.                To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C10.

8.                OP No.1 in its evidence, tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-RK to annexure RL. OP No.2, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure R-A to R-J. OP No.3, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Annexure R-1 and R-3.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

10.              Learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession having 8 acres of land situated in village Kheri Raowali and OP No.1 got insured his rabi 2019-20 crop under the Government scheme PMFBY with OP No.2 by deducting Rs.2584.86 on 13.12.2019 from his said account. He further argued that during the Rabi 2019-20 season, the complainant sown wheat crop in his said land, but due to untimely heavy rainfall, hailstorm and logging of heavy rainy water in his fields, in the month of Feb-March 2020, his wheat crop was badly damaged/ruined and he reported the matter to OPs on 16.03.2020. Upon which, officials of OP No.3 surveyed the fields of complainant and assessed 30% damage to his wheat crop of 8 acres of land, but the OPs failed to release the claim amount to the complainant, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs.    

11.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that to implement the scheme of PMFBY, premium amount of Rs.2584.86 was debited from the KCC account of complainant on 13.12.2019 for Rabi fasal and later on consolidated premium including the premium of complainant was remitted the account of OP No.2 along with premium amount of other farmers.

12.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that as far as localized claim are concerned, it is specifically mentioned here that the intimation of crop loss due to hailstorm submitted by the complainant farmer on 08.3.2020 was rejected because the complainant farmer did not mention specific land survey numbers in crop loss intimation on which insured crops were sown, thus, no localized claim became payable to the complainant-farmer. He further argued that as there was shortfall in the yield of wheat crop in the notified area Kheri Raowali (64), thus the area approach claim of Rs.20533.08 has already been paid to the complainant farmer on 08.10.2020 as per PMFBY scheme provisions.

13.              Undeniably, the complainant is an agriculturist of village Kheri Raowali and holding an account with OP No.1 bank bearing No.00455111013973, from which, premium amount of Rs.2584.86 was deducted on 13.12.2019, under PMFBY, by OP No.1, and got insured wheat crop of complainant for the season 2019-20, from OP No.2.

14.              The grievance of the complainant is that due to untimely heavy rainfall, hailstorm and logging of heavy rainy water, in his fields, in the month of Feb-March 2020, his wheat crop was badly damaged/ruined and OPs surveyed his fields and assessed 30% damage to his wheat crop of 8 acres of land, but OPs failed to release the claim amount.

15.              OP No.1 has contended that premium amount of Rs.2584.86 was debited from the account of complainant on 13.12.2019 for rabi 2019-20, as per PMFBY guidelines and accordingly, the same has been remitted to Agriculture Insurance Company i.e. OP No.2 as is evident from Account Statement Annexure R-K.

16.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 has specifically contended that the intimation of crop loss, due to hailstorm, submitted by the complainant farmer on 08.3.2020 was rejected, because the complainant farmer did not mention specific land survey numbers in crop loss intimation, on which insured crops were sown, thus, no localized claim became payable to the complainant-farmer, but this contention of OP No.2 is self contradictory, because on the one hand, OP No.2 is contending that no localized claim is payable to the complainant, but contrary to it, OP No.2 has himself admitted in its reply that they had already paid claim amount of Rs.20533.08 to the complainant vide document Annexure RF. So, from the perusal of above facts, the above contention of OP No.2 has no force, hence, rejected. In the complaint in hand, complainant alleged that he suffered a loss of Rs.8,50,000/- in 8 acres of land. Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? As per document Annexure R-1, the Agriculture Department has assessed the claim of complainant, based on Average Yield, to the tune of Rs.3851.69 per acre. From the Loss Assessment Report of OP No.3 Agriculture Department Annexure C-7, it is evident that the insured land of complainant was 8 acres. Therefore, for 8 acres of land, complainant is entitled to the tune of Rs.30813.52 (Rs.3851.69 x 8 acres), but OP No.2 had paid only Rs.20533.08 to the complainant (which has also been admitted by the complainant), against total amount of Rs.30813.52 i.e. less amount of Rs.10280.44, due to which, the complainant might have suffered physical harassment and mental agony and forced to knock the door of this Commission by way of filing the complaint in hand. The above act and conduct of OP No.2 amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, OP No.2 is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.10280.44 along with compensation amount + litigation expenses, to the complainant.

17.              Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OP No.2 and dismiss the same against OPs No.1 & 3. We direct OP No.2 to pay Rs.10280.44 along with compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant, within 45 days, from today, failing which, the award amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization.

18.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings 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 records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:29.02.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.