Haryana

StateCommission

A/783/2019

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARKASH CHAWLA - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN GUPTA

30 Sep 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.783 of 2019

                   Date of Institution:06.09.2019

          Date of Decision:30.09.2019

 

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Office, City Thana Road, Sirsa, Haryana through its Branch Manager Sh.Keshav Gupta

..…Appellant

Versus

 

Parkash Chawla W/o Lila Dhar S/o Shri Murli Dhar, Resident of Village Dhaban, Tehsil &District Sirsa, Haryana, now at H.No.251, HUDA, Sector-20, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

…..Respondent

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                    Mr. Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri Nitin Gupta, counsel for the appellant.

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch office City Thana road, Sirsa, (hereinafter referred to as ‘opposite party’) has filed the instant appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated 24.07.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa whereby complaint preferred by Parkash Chawla (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’) was allowed and the opposite party directed to pay the claimed amount for the loss of crop to the complainant after verification from Agriculture Department/Competent Authority and at par with the other  farmers of village Dhaban who got insurance claim from the insurance company for the loss of crop.  The opposite party was further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. The opposite party was held liable to comply with  the order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant would be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the claim amount from the date of order till actual payment.

2.      According to the complainant, she was owner in possession of land measuring 55 kanal 4 marlas comprised in  Khewat No.45, Khatauni No.52 as per jamabandi for the year 2012-13 and she availed a kissan credit card/crop loan facility from the opposite party by mortgaging her land for Rs.5,50,000/-.  The Government of India launched a scheme, known as ‘Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna’ for providing financial security to the farmers. The scheme was necessary for the loanee farmers.  As per the scheme it was the duty of the bankers of farmers to deduct the amount of premium of insurance from the account of the loanee farmer and to remit the same to the insurance company.  The complainant sowed cotton crop for kharif 2017. However, the yield from the crop was not as expected for standard yield.  The threshold yield for kharif 2017 was 631.44 Kgs. per hectare and average yield of village Dhaban remained 413.63 kgs. per hectare.  The insured farmers got the amount of insurance of their crop of kharif, 2017. In Sirsa District, for the cotton crop of kharif, 2017, sum insured was Rs.69,000/- per hectare.  The farmers of village Dhaban got their claim for crop insurance in the month of October, 2018, but, the complainant did not get the claim of crop insurance.  The complainant sent an application to the bank for the insurance claim and also visited the bank, when she was told by the bank officials that the bank had not deducted the premium amount for crop insurance for the loan account of the complainant. Accordingly, she did not get any claim of insurance from the insurance company.  The opposite party was legally bound to deduct the amount of crop insurance premium from the loan account of the complainant and to remit the same to the insurance company.  The opposite party had debited sum of Rs.2077.78 dated 02.08.2016; Rs.1399.43 dated 05.08.2016 for crop kharif 2016, Rs.2211.83 dated 10.01.2017 and Rs.2428.28 dated 30.12.2017, but for khariff 2017 the opposite party failed to discharge its lawful duty.  As such, the complainant suffered net loss of Rs.63,691/-. The complainant was entitled to get the above said amount from the opposite party alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum from the due date till its realization.  She was also entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- as she suffered harassment and financial loss.  Hence, this complaint.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite party filed written version taking preliminary objections.  On merits, the fact of launching of ‘Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna’ by the Government of India and every loanee farmer required to be covered under the scheme mandatorily was admitted.  However, as per Government of India guidelines, the scheme emphasized that Aadhar number was mandatory under the DBT scheme.  The terms and conditions of the scheme were published in the local newspaper as well as in the media and the banks.  The complainant was asked time and again to submit his Aadhar card to enable the opposite party-Bank  upto 31.07.2017 to get her crop under insurance coverage, but the complainant failed to supply the same well in time and, instead, she supplied the Aadhar card only on 08.11.2017 i.e. after the expiry of cutoff date mentioned in the notification.  Consequently, the crops of the complainant could not be insured.  Prayer for accordingly made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, learned District Forum allowed the complaint by passing the impugned order. 

5.      Having heard learned counsel for the opposite party and on perusal of the impugned order, this Commission finds that the complainant was holding Kisan Credit Card account with the opposite party against his land holding.  Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna was launched for providing financial security to the farmers.  The complainant availed of relief under the scheme but for kharif 2017 the opposite party failed to discharge its lawful duty.  As such,  the complainant did not get the insurance claim from the insurance company.

6.      According to the opposite party, as per the Government of India guidelines the scheme emphasized that the Aadhar number was mandatory under the DBT scheme and the terms and conditions of the scheme were published in local newspaper as well as in the media by the Government of India as well as by the bank. The complainant was asked time and again to submit his Aadhar card upto 31.07.2017 so as to enable  her to get her crops covered, but, the complainant failed to do so.  On the other hand, he supplied his Aadhar card only on 08.11.2017 i.e. after the expiry of cutoff date mentioned in the notification. In this regard, learned counsel for the opposite party has produced the notification as per which, cut-off date for receipt of proposals to farmers was 31.07.2017.

7.      The plea of the opposite party that it had been demanding the Aadhar card of the complainant time and again, which was mandatory to get the crop insurance coverage from the insurance company on or before 31.07.2017 and due to non-production of Aadhar card by the complainant, the opposite party could not deduct the premium and remit the same to the insurance company.  However, no material was placed on record by the opposite party from which it could be presumed that prior to 31.07.2017 it ever made any demand of Aadhar card which was mandatory to deduct amount of premium from the complainant’s account and to remit the same to the insurance company in order to cover the crop of the complainant.  It is not disputed by the opposite party that no letter was written to the complainant, calling her to produce Aadhar card on or before 31.07.2017.  On the other hand, the complainant had submitted the Aadhar card only on 08.11.2017.  Therefore, the opposite party had not discharged its liability to call upon the complainant to submit her Aadhar card or deduct and remit the amount of premium to the insurance company in order to get coverage of his crop which clearly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

8.      In view of the above, no fault can be found  with the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum Sirsa.  The appeal is without any merit and therefore, dismissed.

9.      Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the opposite party while filing the appeal shall be disbursed in favour of the complainant-Parkash Chawla against proper receipt and identification subject to decision of the appeal/revision, if any.

30th  September, 2019      Manjula             Harnam Singh Thakur              T.P. S. Mann

                                                Member             Judicial Member                         President

 

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)