BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 04 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 07.01.2020.
Date of Decision : 17.11.2022.
Satya Monga (aged about 76 years) widow of Sh. Dev Parkash Monga, R/o Monga Building, 3rd Street, Suratgaria Bazar, Sirsa- 125055.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Punjab National Bank, Rori Bazar, Sirsa through its Manager.
2. Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Dabra Chowk, ITI Road, Hisar through its Deputy General Manager.
3. Punjab National Bank, Head Office Dwarka, New Delhi through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Rishab Goyal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that husband of complainant during his life time on the persuasion of the bank officials obtained/ purchased FDR under the senior citizen scheme launched by ops alongwith the Govt. of India and at that time his husband was told by the officers of the Bank that said scheme is having maximum interest i.e. @8.60% i.e. higher than the other investment schemes. After due discussion her husband agreed to invest Rs.4.00 lakhs in Senior Citizen Scheme. The ops after completion of all the documentary formalities, opened an account bearing No. 043000SCSS000017 under the scheme SCSS. The husband of complainant credited an amount of Rs.4.00 lakh from his existing account No.0430000100366120 from 2.2.2009 to 2.2.2014. The scheme known as SCSS was initially prepared for five years i.e. from 02.02.2009 to 02.02.2014 subject to further extension of another five years. It is further averred that ops undertook and promised that they shall be bound to credit quarterly interest in saving account of husband of complainant. The amount of quarterly interest was transferred till 2014 and thereafter the FDR was further extended up to 2.2.2019. The entry for further five years i.e. 2.2.2014 to 2.2.2019 was made by ops in his pass book. That the ops credited the interest amount only till 3.2.2017. The husband of complainant upon completion of five years was interested/ willing to withdraw the amount alongwith interest till 2.2.2019 and he went to the bank and requested the officials for completing his saving account wherein the interest amount from 3.2.2017 to 2.2.2019 had been left to credit. The ops upon verifying the same from the computer agreed that the amount of Rs. four lacs remained in the account of SCSS till 2.2.2019 whereas the quarterly interest from 3.2.2017 to 2.2.2019 i.e. eight quarters and seventy one days left to credit in account no. 0430000100366120 due to some clerical or inadvertently mistake but the concerned officer advised to contact after few days. It is further averred that husband of complainant due to his ill health and heart problem could not contact for couple of months. Even from the ops side there was no information or communication in writing and husband of complainant died on 25.4.2019. The complainant alongwith her son personally contacted with the ops and inquired about the status of interest amount due against them but the officials of ops assured and postponed the matter on one pretext or the other.
3. It is further averred that complainant after waiting for sufficient time sent mails and reminders and finally received the email on 16.11.2019 with the observations “we have lodged SPSD to resolve the complaint on 24.09.2019 with SPSD No. 3558644. SPSD has been closed with the comments ‘please read the circular HO GBD 43/2014 carefully as the SCSS ACCT can only be extended for three years and after extension if the account is not closed it will not earn any interest, so as per the above no interest will be paid to the customer as delay was on the part of customer with closer of account. That the impugned, non speaking, cryptic order explain itself that the ops are guilty of their negligence act and now trying to shift their deficiency in service upon the shoulders of innocent customers and said decision of ops is against the natural justice and without affording an opportunity of hearing. The said circular has neither been circulated nor informed to the complainant and same may be for personal use of ops and cannot be treated as a public record. That prior to passing of the impugned decision, the ops have utterly failed to go through the request, emails, reminders and queries of complainant. That ops have thus acted in an arbitrary and monopolistic manner and they have not only harassed and tortured the complainant but are bent upon to extort money from her and they have been put to mental tension. Hence, this complaint.
4. The officers of the bank informed to the husband of complainant that such a scheme launched by the bank in collaboration with the Govt. of India complainant is an agriculturist having land measuring 38 kanals 9 marlas of her share (as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) situated in village Mammar Khera, Tehsil Rania District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017. The complainant has availed KCC/ crop loan facility from op no.1 vide account No. 32875832935 and Government of India has launched crop insurance scheme known as Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for insurance of crop of loanee as well as non loanee farmers and as such complainant also desired to op no.1 to get her crop of Kharif, 2018 insured from insurance company. It is further averred that on 28.07.2018, op no.1 had deducted a sum of Rs.2045/- from the above said account of complainant against the premium with the assurance that her crop of Kharif, 2018 i.e. Narma crop has been insured under the said scheme against any kind of damage due to natural calamities. The complainant also submitted all kind of relevant and necessary documents to op no.1 including copy of Nehri Girdawari etc. on demand made by op no.1. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2018 was damaged on account of natural calamities and as such complainant approached op no.1 and requested to indemnify her claim but the bank authorities kept on avoiding the request of complainant on one false pretext or the other and despite several requests ultimately the bank authorities have flatly refused to indemnify the claim of complainant saying that complainant is not entitled to compensation and ops refunded the premium amount of Rs.2045/- in the account of complainant on 20.6.2019 which is wrong, illegal and against law. The complainant is legally entitled to get compensation as other farmers have already received compensation for the damage to their crop of cotton. The act and conduct of the ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
5. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed reply raising preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per the term of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY), which was launched by Hon’ble Prime Minister on 13.02.2016, for the farmers who have sought crop loan from any Financial Institutions, it was mandatory for the Banks to insure all the borrowers under the scheme. The premium of the insurance was to be deducted from the account and was to be paid to the insurance company by the Bank. In the present case, the Bank has debited the amount of premium from the account of the complainant and has credited the same to the account of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. All the information required by the insurance company was to be sent to them as per rules, but the same could not be uploaded in the portal of the insurance company for want of aadhar card in the account of the complainant. The answering op bank had advertised several times with the appeal to the farmers to submit their aadhar cards in their accounts. It is further submitted that after the debit of amount of premium in the account of the complainant, the complainant was advised to deposit the aadhar card with the Bank as insurance was necessary on the instructions from Govt. of India, but she failed to deposit the same for the reason known to her. As such, the complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the present complaint against the answering op. It is further submitted that information could not be uploaded in the portal of the insurance company for want of aadhar card, as such the insurance company was requested with several repeated reminders to refund the amount of the above said premium amount, which was debited in the account of the complainant and after receiving the same from the insurance company was remitted back in the account of the complainant. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied, pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. Notice was issued to op no.2 through registered cover which received back with the report of refusal and as none appeared on behalf of op no.2, therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
7. The complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.P1, copy of pass book Ex.P2, copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.P3, copy of statement of account Ex.P4, letter of bank Ex.P5, khasra girdawari Ex.P6 and letter of Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare department, Sirsa Ex.P7.
8. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Kaushal Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex.R1, copy of statement of account Ex.R2 and copy of transaction enquiry Ex.R3.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
10. The basic requirement for the complainant for seeking insurance claim for the damage of crop is to prove damage to the crop. In this regard, oral averments of complainant in her complaint as well as in affidavit needs to be supported with documentary proof and without any documentary evidence, simple oral assertion of complainant cannot be believed. Though complainant has placed on file report/ letter of Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa issued to complainant as Ex.P7 wherein it is mentioned that average yield of cotton crop in 2018 was 398.83 Kgs. per hectare but in this only document produced on record by complainant it is not mentioned that as average yield was 398.83 Kgs. per hectare in village Mammarkhera, there was loss of cotton crop in village Mammarkhera. The complainant has not placed on file any other report to prove loss to her crop. To prove the loss to the crop of complainant, the complainant was to place on file report of agriculture department regarding threshold yield of block of her village to compare loss of crop in her village but complainant has failed to do so. So, it cannot be said that above said yield of 398.83 Kgs. of cotton crop in village Mammarkhera was less than threshold yield of block of village Mammarkhera. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove on record actual loss to her cotton crop of Kharif, 2018. Further more, though complainant has alleged that co-owner of complainant namely Ranjeet Singh son of Jai Narayan has received compensation of Rs.1,05,099/- on 18.06.2019 and has also averred that copy of his statement of account is attached but complainant has not produced any statement of account of said Ranjeet Singh. So oral assertion of complainant without any document proof in this regard is also not proved on record. Moreover, complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation on account of damage to her crop but she has failed to prove on record that on what basis she calculated the above said amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for loss of crop in 38 kanals 9 marlas of land. She has not placed on file any document regarding sum insured and regarding assessment of loss of crop and since complainant has failed to prove basic requirement of the case i.e. damage to her cotton crop, therefore, she is not entitled to any claim amount.
11. In view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 29.07.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
