BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 302 of 2019
Date of Institution : 13. 11.2019
Date of Decision : 09.08.2022
Jitender Singh son of Sh. Baru Ram R/o VPO Garhwali Tehsil Julana, District Jind.
.….Complainant
Versus
- Punjab National Bank Gatauli Branch, Jind.
- SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office: “Natraj” 101, 201 & 301, Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla-Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400069 through its Managing Director/authorized person.
3. State of Haryana through Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Jind.
……Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM: SH. MUKESH BANSAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT. NEERU AGARWAL, MEMBER.
SH. G.D. GOYAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, learned counsel for OP No.2.
Sh. Navneet Kumar, Assistant Statistical Officer on behalf of OP No. 3.
ORDER
The facts giving rise to the present complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist and for the last 4/5 years, he is in cultivating possession of agriculture land measuring 8 Kanals owned by Smt. Bimla wife of Om Parkash and further land measuring 16 kanals (wrongly typed as 16 marlas) owned by Surja, Chander Singh, Om Parkash, Ram Kishan, Jai Lal Raj Kishan sons of Bahadar totaling land measuring 24 kanals (3 acres) situated within revenue estate of village Garhwali Khera as per jamabandi for the year 2015-2016. The paddy crop of complainant was insured by OP No.2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (in short PMFBY) and for this purpose a sum of Rs.1764/- deducted on 31.07.2018 from his bank account with OP No.1. It is pleaded that the crop in 3 acres got damaged completely due to heavy rain/inundation. Complainant moved an application to Agriculture Department on 25.09.2018 for inspection at the spot and to assess the losses, upon which, survey was conducted in the presence of official of OP No.2 and crop of the village was found damaged/destroyed to the extent of 75.5%. However, crop of complainant was totally damaged. Complainant suffered loss of paddy yield about @ 20 quintals per acre, and thus a total loss in 3 acres comes to 60 quintals and thereby suffered loss @ Rs.3500/- per quintals which comes to Rs.2,10,000/- but the Op No.2 did not pay any amount on account of crop damage to the complainant and avoided the same on one pretext or the other which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Complaint has been preferred seeking relief of Rs.2,10,000/- as damages, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pains and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies.
OP No.1-bank in its reply raised preliminary objections that the answering OP has been unnecessarily impleaded as the relief claimed is against only OP No.2. On merits, it is admitted that crop of complainant was insured with OP No.2 and the policy had been issued by OP No.2. It is submitted that the answering OP has no knowledge about the damage of the crop of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint. No information with regard to the loss was given to the answering OP. The amount paid by the OP Insurance company if less it is to be proved by the complainant. OP has pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on its part and is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs has been made.
OP No.2- insurance company tendered its reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. On merits, it is stated that complainant never shared policy & application number with the answering OP. Hence, the OP insurance company is not able to trace the claim or any grievance for such allegations. Further, on checking complainant’s details through account no.3278000101014753 mentioned in the complaint but no such information regarding the particulars of the complainant claim was available with them. OP has stated that since the complainant suppressed relevant and important materials and information from this Hon’ble Commission, therefore, the complaint is not legally maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs.
OP No.3-agriculture department in the reply raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous, complainant is not consumer of OP No.3. Complaint has been filed with ulterior motive to extract money from it and that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that the survey was conducted is a matter of record, however, denied any kind of compensation to the complainant from the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. To buttress his case, complainant placed on record affidavit Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence.
On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 placed on record affidavit Annexure OPW1/A. The counsel for OP No.2 placed on record affidavit of Sh. Arvind Singh Naruka as Annexure OPW2/A. OP No.3 has placed on record affidavit OPW3/A and the Ops closed their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, as well as representative of OP No.3 and perused the record very carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that due to heavy rains his paddy crop sown in 3 acre got flooded with water and damaged by 75.5%. The counsel has argued that complainant suffered loss of Rs.2,10,000/- for the paddy crop. But the OP insurance company did not pay any compensation. Complainant’s counsel also argued that the act & conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as harassment to the complainant.
On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that complainant never shared policy & application number with the answering OP. So, the OP insurance company was not able to trace his alleged claim/grievance. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
Learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that crop of complainant was insured with OP No.2 and the policy had been issued by it and compensation, if any, is to be paid by the Op insurance company. The OP bank has no knowledge about the damage to the crop of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and argued for dismissal of complaint qua it.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of bank account of complainant (Annexure C-2), it emerges that the premium for crop insurance of complainant was deducted by the OP bank on 31.07.2018 and as per affidavit of Sh. Jagdish Redhu, Branch Manager of OP Bank (OPW1/A), the amount of premium has been paid to the OP insurance company. But as per OP insurance company, it has not received premium from the OP bank, therefore, the crop of complainant was not insured with it and thus no question of paying any compensation to the complainant by it arises. It is mandatory under the PMFBY Notification that farmer availing loans from financial institutions (loanee farmers) for the notified crops would be covered compulsorily. In the present case, Op bank has admitted that complainant was availing cash credit limit from it under account number 3278000101014753 and premium of Rs.1764/- was deducted from the said account of complainant for crop insurance. The OP bank has not placed on record any document which could show that the premium amount so deducted was remitted to the OP insurance company or that it has received the premium amount. Further, as per PMFBY guidelines “Insurance companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intimidators or directly. Any loss in transit due to negligence by these agencies or non-remittance of premium by these agencies, the concerned bank/intermediaries shall be liable for payment of claim. (2) If in case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such miss-reporting”. In view of this, the OP bank is hereby held liable to compensate the complainant for the crop loss.
As per intimation of crop loss by OP No.3-Agriculture Department to the OP No.2 insurance company (Annexure C-4) and sample survey report (Annexure C-5), complainant has suffered loss to the paddy crop in 3 acre by 75.5%. To prove ownership over the land, complainant has placed on record copy of jamabandi Annexure C-7. The prevailing rate of sum insured for the paddy crop was Rs.28,935/- per acre during the year 2018. Therefore, calculating the actual loss to the paddy crop of complainant in 3 acre while assessing loss at 75.5% comes to Rs.65,537/-. Therefore, the complaint is allowed and the OP No.1 bank is directed to comply with the following directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order:-
(i) To pay Rs.65,537/- (Rs. Sixty Five thousand five hundred thirty seven) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till the date of actual realization. In case of default, the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till the actual realization.
(ii) And to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
- Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousand) as litigation expenses.
Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs, on usual terms. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced on: 09.08.2022 (Mukesh Bansal) President
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer.
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(G.D. Goyal)
Member
CC No.302 of 2019
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, learned counsel for OP No.2.
Sh. Navneet Kumar, Assistant Statistical Officer on behalf of OP No. 3.
Arguments concluded. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint has been allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced: 09.08.2022. Member Member President DCDRC, Jind
