Haryana

Kaithal

79/20

Ved Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Pardeep Taya

21 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

                                                               Complaint Case No. 79 of 2020.

                                                               Date of institution:   13.02.2020.

                                                               Date of decision:      21.11.2023.

 

Ved Pal s/o Shri Hira Singh, r/o village Rasina, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                    Versus

1. The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Pundri, District Kaithal.
2. ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited, The Statement Building, Plot No.149, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No.305, 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 Pardeep Taya, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri O.P. Gulati, Adv. for the Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Arvind Khurania, Adv. for 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 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant owned and possessed land measuring area 25 kanal 19 marla in village Rasina. He has an account bearing No.07495111008640 with OP No.1, who insured his crop under the scheme Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) with the OP No.2 for the year 2017-18 and deduced an amount of Rs.1161/- on 29.12.2017. In rabi season of 2017-18, he sown wheat crop, but due to untimely heavy rainfall in the are on 16.04.2018, his crop was damaged. He reported the matter to OP No.3, who inspected his fields and assessed 90% damage to his crop. He requested the OPs various times to pay the said amount but they did not do so.  So, the above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service on their part, due to which, he suffered physical harassment and mental agony, 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 stated that OP No.1 has no role about issuance of crop insurance policy. However, to implement the PMFBY, premium amount was debited form KCC account of complainant on 29.12.2017 for rabi 2017-18 amounting to Rs.1161/- and same was remitted to implementing agency/ICICI Lombard OP No.2 in their account through Electronic Transfer through NEFT-SAA51965795 on 16.01.2018.

5.                OP No.2, in its written statement stated that OP No.2 has limited limit about issuance of crop insurance policy or abut processing & adjudicating of insurance claim pertaining to the complainant. Present complainant was loanee farmer/customer of OP No.1, who availed seasonable agriculture operation loan in the shape of Agri. CC from OP No.1 by way of mortgaging his agriculture land. Complainant neither produced any cogent documentary evidence regarding alleged loss suffered by him nor any authenticated snaps of spot/agri. fields placed on record. Complainant should have approached to DAC and FW department for any kind of grievance relating to scheme, but instead of that, he filed the present complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

6.                OP No.3, in its written statement stated that fields of complainant as well as other farmers were inspected by the officials of OP No.1 randomly at village level and survey report was prepared as per spot inspection.

7.                To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8.

8.                OP No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R1 to annexure R11. OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A. However, OP No.2 failed to lead any evidence despite availing various sufficient opportunities, as such, evidence of OP No.2 was closed on 05.10.2023, by the order of this Commission.

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

10.              Ld. counsel for complainant argued that that the complainant owned and possessed land measuring area 25 kanal 19 marla in village Rasina. He further argued that the complainant has an account bearing No.07495111008640 with OP No.1, who insured his crop under the scheme Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) with the OP No.2 for the year 2017-18 and deduced an amount of Rs.1161/- on 29.12.2017. In rabi season of 2017-18, the complainant sown wheat crop, but due to untimely heavy rainfall in the are on 16.04.2018, his crop was damaged. He reported the matter to OP No.3, who inspected his fields and assessed 90% damage to his crop. The complainant requested the OPs various times to pay the said amount but they did not do so, which amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11.              On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No. 1 argued that OP No.1 has no role about issuance of crop insurance policy. However, to implement the PMFBY, premium amount was debited form KCC account of complainant on 29.12.2017 for rabi 2017-18 amounting to Rs.1161/- and same was remitted to implementing agency/ICICI Lombard OP No.2 in their account through Electronic Transfer through NEFT-SAA51965795 on 16.01.2018.

12.              Ld. counsel for OP No. 2-Insurance Company has argued that OP No.2 has limited limit about issuance of crop insurance policy or about processing & adjudicating of insurance claim pertaining to the complainant. Present complainant was loanee farmer/customer of OP No.1, who availed seasonable agriculture operation loan in the shape of Agri. CC from OP No.1 by way of mortgaging his agriculture land. Complainant neither produced any cogent documentary evidence regarding alleged loss suffered by him nor any authenticated snaps of spot/agri. fields placed on record. Complainant should have approached to DAC and FW department for any kind of grievance relating to scheme, but instead of that, he filed the present complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

13.              Sh. Sunil Kumar, GP for OP No. 3-Agriculture Department has stated that fields of complainant as well as other farmers were inspected by the officials of OP No.1 randomly at village level and survey report was prepared as per spot inspection.

14.              There is no dispute that the complainant is an agriculturist and having a bank account with OP No.1 bank bearing account No.07495111008640, who deducted Rs.1161/- on 29.12.2017 from the said account, on account of premium for ‘PMFBY’ for Rabbi 2017-18, as is evident from Statement of Account Ex.C-4. 

15.              The grievance of the complainant is that due to untimely heavy rainfall in the area on 16.04.2018, his crop was damaged and the Agriculture Deptt. assessed 90% damage to his crop, but OP No.2 failed to release the said claim amount to him despite repeated requests made by him.

16.              On the other hand, OP No.1 has admitted about deducting the premium amount of Rs.1161 from the account of complainant and stated that OP No.1 had remitted the said amount to implementing agency/ICICI Lombard OP No.2 in their account through Electronic Transfer through NEFT-SAA51965795 on 16.01.2018 and this fact is evident from document Ex.R-8. Moreover, OP No.1 produced document Ex.R-10, which is the list of farmers whose premium was deducted by OP No.1 towards PMFBY and in that list, name of complainant having bank account bearing No.07495111008640 is mentioned in first line at Serial No.291. OP No.1 further produced document Ex.R-11 (having total page 1 to 46), which is the list of farmers whose premium amount under PMFBY was sent to insurance company and name of complainant i.e. Ved Pal s/o Shri Hira Singh is mentioned in the last of Page No.15. So, since OP No.2 has duly received the insured amount under PMFBY of complainant, therefore, OP No.2 is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant under the said scheme. Moreover, 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 OP No.1 bank, but nothing has been done, on the part of OP No.2 and this Commission relies 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”.  

18.              So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was required for OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmer concerned to OP No.1 bank, after pointing out any discrepancy on its end, within the period of cutoff 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 gross 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 the complainant, due to destruction/damage of his crop.

19.              In the present case, in Mark-A, the Agriculture Department has assessed the based on Localized Survey to the tune of Rs.2415.92. Hence, for 3.1 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the total amount of Rs.7489.35 (Rs.2415.92 x 3.1 acre), which shall be paid, by OP No.2 to the complainant.        

20.              Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.7489.35, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization, within 45 days, from today. OP No.2-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-, on account of physical harassment and mental agony, suffered by the complainant as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges, to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.     

21.              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 records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:21.11.2023.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.