BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 348 of 2019
Date of Institution : 26. 11.2019
Date of Decision : 24.08.2022
Manjeet Singh son of Sh. Satibir Singh R/o Khera Bakhta Tehsil Julana, District Jind.
.….Complainant
Versus
- Punjab National Bank, Karela Tehsil Julana District 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. Rajesh Goyat, 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 filing of this complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist having land situated within revenue estate of village Khera Bakhta as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018. He is maintaining bank account no.1110008800004300 with OP No.1 bank and availed crop loan. His paddy and Bajra crop was insured with OP No.2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (in short PMFBY) through OP No.1 and for this purpose a sum of Rs.1487.22p. deducted on 31.07.2018 for paddy crop and also deducted Rs.145.69 for Bajra Crop from his bank account with OP No.1. It is submitted that for the loss of Bajra crop, Op insurance company paid him Rs.1867.87p on 05.08.2019. It is pleaded that his 2½ acre paddy crop got damaged completely due to heavy rains on 24.09.2018. Information in this regard was given to Ops on 25.09.2018, upon which, survey was conducted and found loss to the extent of 70% of paddy crop. As per complainant, he has suffered loss of paddy yield about @ 20 quintals per acre, and thus a total loss in 2 ½ acres comes to 50 quintals and thereby suffered loss @ Rs.3500/- per quintals which works out to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/- but they avoided the same on one pretext or the other which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred seeking relief of Rs.1,75,000/- 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 insurance company. On merits, it is admitted that crop of complainant was insured with OP No.2. The answering OP deducted the amount of premium from the account of complainant and sent the same to the OP insurance company which was duly accepted. The OP has submitted that it has no knowledge about loss to the crop of complainant. The alleged assessment of loss was not carried out in the presence of OP. Complainant has urged that the liability to settle the claim is upon the insurance company as per terms of the policy whereas the OP bank is only a mediator and its duty was to deduct the premium and send the same to the insurance company. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and it 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 filed 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 admitted that insurance policy was issued to the complainant for coverage of millet (Bajra) and paddy crop as per the PMFBY guidelines. Assessment of loss as per govt. guidelines under PMFBY, to the crop of millet was found Rs.1823.87 which has already been paid to the complainant. But the OP company has not received any localized claim intimation, therefore, the complainant’s claim for paddy crop assessed on the basis of shortage of yield but the village Khera Bakhta (37) Actual yield (AY) kilogram/Hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) Kilogram/Hectare for paddy crop. Hence, the claim not liable for any claim as per PMFBY guidelines. Hence, no liability on the part of this OP can be attributed and prayed for dismissal of complaint 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 and thus present complaint does not lie against the answering Op, the present 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 complaint, complainant placed on record affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence.
On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 placed on record documents as Annexures OP1/1 to OP1/9 and closed the evidence. The counsel for OP No.2 placed on record affidavit of Sh. Arvind Singh Naruka Assistant Manager as Annexure OPW2/A and closed the evidence. OP No.3 has placed on record affidavit OPW3/A and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to heavy rains, paddy crop of complainant standing in about 2 ½ acres flooded with water, as a result thereof, the total crops got damaged. As per notification dated 13.06.2017 issued by the department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana, for the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (hereinafter referred to as PMFBY), inspection was conducted by the inspection committee constituted by the department of Agriculture, Haryana and found 70% damage to the crop but the Ops did not pay any amount. Thus the counsel has argued that the act & conduct of Ops amounts to deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment and prayed for acceptance of complaint as prayed for.
On the other hand, learned counsel for Op No.1 argued that bank account of complainant is with the OP bank and the crop of complainant was insured by OP No.2, it has no knowledge about the loss caused to the complainant. In the end, the counsel argued that claim, if any, is to be paid by the OP Insurance company and thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP bank and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
Learned counsel for Op No.2 argued that the millet and paddy crop of complainant was insured with it and claim was assessed under the PMFBY scheme and Rs.1823.87 for millet crop was paid to the complainant. But no claim received for the paddy crop. However, as per pleadings, complainant claims for paddy crop on the basis of shortage of yield but in the village actual yield was more than threshold, therefore, complainant found not entitled for any claim under the scheme. In the end, thus have prayed that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy costs.
6. It is admitted by the OP insurance company that the crops (millet and paddy) of complainant was insured with them and as per admission of complainant he has received compensation of Rs.1823.87p for millet crop. The Op insurance company not assessed the claim of complainant allegedly in the absence of claim intimation. But perusal of Annexure C-3 reveals that complainant as intimated the OP No.3-agriculture department with regard to loss to his crop on 25.09.2018 and the agriculture department further intimated the OP insurance company vide Annexure C-4. Therefore, we are not inclined to put credence on the averment that complainant not given intimation with regard to loss to his paddy crop. It is clear from the survey report (Annexure C-5) conducted by the Agriculture Department-OP No.3 that there was 70% loss to the paddy crop due to water accumulation in the fields. Further, as per Annexure C-4, paddy crop of complainant affected in 2 ½ acre. To prove ownership over the land, complainant has placed on record copy of jamabandi Annexure C-6. As per notification (Annexure C-7), the sum insured for the paddy crop was Rs.73,500/- per hectare (Rs.29,400/- per acre). Therefore, calculating the actual loss to the paddy crop of complainant in 2 ½ acre while assessing loss at 70% comes to Rs.51,450/-. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the OP insurance company has arbitrarily & illegally not compensated the complainant for the crop loss whereas, the complainant was squarely entitled for the actual loss caused to him. So, the OP No.2 insurance company is held liable to indemnify the loss caused to the complainant for paddy crop in 2 ½ acres. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the OP No.2 insurance company 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.51,450/- (Rs. Fifty one thousand four hundred fifty) 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.10,000/- (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:24.08.2022 (Mukesh Bansal) President
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer.
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(G.D. Goyal)
Member
CC No.348 of 2019
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. Rajesh Goyat, 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:24.08.2022 Member Member President DCDRC, Jind
