Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/49/2021

Balwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep

11 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.49 of 2021.                                                                Date of Instt.: 08.02.2021.                                                                         Date of Decision: 11.09.2023

Balwan son of Arjun son of Jodha resident of village Bhimewala Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Punjab National Bank, Branch Bithmara Tehsil Uklana District Hisar through its Branch Manager.

2.Universal Sompo General Insurance Company  Unit No.401, 4^th  Floor, Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri-Kurla, Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400059 through its Chairmain cum Managing Director/authorised.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  ShSandeep,Authorised Representative of complainant.                             Sh.M.K.Dharnia, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                   OP No.2 exparte vide order dated 17.04.2023.                                                           

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is owner in possession of land as mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint situated at Village Bhimewala. It is alleged that the complainant had sown cotton crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facilities with account No.1252008800010234; that the complainant got the standing cotton crop insured with the Op No.2 on 31.07.2018 and in this regard insurance premium to the tune of Rs.1519/- was debited from his account by Op No.1 and credited in the account of Op No.2; that due to hailstorm and accumulation of water, the crops of the complainant got damaged; that on his application concerned officials of Agriculture Department inspected the field of the complainant and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14,400/- per hectare; that despite several requests and serving of legal notice, the claim for lost crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainant has suffered great financial losses. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.                          Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to suppression of material facts, cause of action, maintainability and jurisdiction; that amount of premium of Rs.1519/- on 31.07.2018 for insuring the khariff crop 2018 was debited from the loan account of the complainant as per his disclosure and thereafter it was sent to Op no.1/insurance company without any delay, therefore, the insurance company is liable to make the payment of loss of crop, if any; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.

3.                          Op No.2 filed its separate reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, jurisdiction and non-joinder of necessary parties etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that the  complainant had to approach DAC/FW being designated/empanelled agriculture insurance company  and the final selection of IA from amongst the pre-qualified insurance companies shall be done based on the lowest weighted premium quoted by a pre-qualified company for all notified crops within the cluster of districts; that the scheme would be implemented on an ‘Area Approach basis” i.e. defined areas for each notified crop; that the enrolment under the scheme was subject to possession of insurable interest on the cultivation of the notified crop in the notified area; that the risk was to be shared by the IA and the Government; that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidentiary proof to confirm that alleged farmer has availed insurance from replying Op or not, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Other contentions of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 tendered into evidence documents Annexure R1/1 to Annexure R1/4. During the pendency of the complaint none had turned up on behalf of Op No.2, therefore it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.04.2023.  No evidence on  behalf of Op No.2 has been filed.

5.                          We have heard oral final arguments from both sides and perused the case file minutely.

6.                          It has been argued by the complainant that the complainant had sown ‘cotton’ crops in his land, which was duly insured, under PMFBY with OP No.2, but when his crop got damaged, no compensation on account of insured crop was given to him despite the fact that it has completed all the formalities with regard to compensation of damaged cotton crop.

7.                          On the other the Ops have resisted the claim of complainant on the ground that the complainant has not suffered any loss of crop as in the area where the land of the complainant is situated, no natural calamities like hailstorm and heavy rain fall has ever taken place. Learned counsel for the Ops further resisted the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant did not intimate the Ops qua the damage of crop as per the operational guidelines and has also not submitted any assessment report and the average yield is greater than the threshold yield, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation.

8.                          The complainant in his complaint has specifically mentioned that on his complaint, the concerned department had assessed the loss to the complainant in 1.2 hectare  land situated at village Bhimewala and further assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14400/- and regarding this the complainant  has drawn the attention of this Commission towards the loss assessment report placed on file as Annexure C2.

9.                          Since the insurance company had accepted the payment qua insurance premium of crop and kept the same with it meaning thereby that OP No.2/insurance company had accepted the premium without any objection and now when the damage to the crop of complainant has been caused, then OP No.2 arbitrarily and illegally denying to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. So, the OP No.2 is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.2/insurance company only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainant for Kharif 2017 season and Op no.1/bank is not found responsible in this regard.  

10.                        Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant has suffered loss of sown crop in 1.2 hectare of land and the concerned Agriculture Department in its report Annexure C2 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14400/- per hectare, therefore, it would be just and proper to give compensation to the complainant as assessed by the concerned agriculture department in its report on yield basis.

11.                        Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against OP No.2/insurance company with a direction as follows:

(1)                        To pay an amount of Rs.17280/- as insurance claim amount to the complainant for the damages of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018, sown by him in 1.2 hectare of land.

(2)                        To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rs.Eleven Thousand) towards compensation for harassment and mental agony etc. suffered by the complainant as well as for litigation expenses.

                             The amount mentioned at Sr. No. (1) would carry simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the compliant till actual payment.  The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the entire amount mentioned at Sr. Nos. (1) & (2) above would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, no deficiency is found on the part of OP no.1/bank, therefore, complaint against Op No.1/bank stands dismissed. 

12.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents 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. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated:11.09.2023

                                                                                                        

                       (K.S.Nirania)              (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                                                  Member                       Member                              President