Haryana

Kaithal

348/20

Chander Bhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Mandeep Singh

21 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 348 of 2020.

                                                               Date of institution:   16.10.2020.

                                                               Date of decision:      21.12.2023.

 

Chander Bhan s/o Shri Bhagga Ram, aged about 55 years, r/o village Sadarheri, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                      Versus

 

1. Punjab National Bank, Guhla, through its Branch Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Company, near Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department, Kaithal Office at Room No.305, Mini Secretariat, Kaithal.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                  

                  

Present:       Shri Mandeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri O.P. Gulati, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Amit Kaushik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

                   Shri Sunil Kumar, PO, Rep. for Opposite Party No.3.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the OPs.

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession. He has an account No.1925008800000139, with OP No.1, who had insured his crop under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (for short “PMFBY”) for the year 2018-19 vide policy No.401061801507606715, after deducting Rs.2167/-, from his said account. He sown paddy crop in khariff season 2018, but due to heavy rainfall, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined due to rainwater lodging. He reported the matter to Block Agriculture Officer, Cheeka, who in return inspected his fields along with officials of OP No.2 and assessed 30-40% damage to his paddy crop, as such, he is entitled for claim amount of Rs.2,10,000/-. He approached the OPs various times with a request to release the claim amount, but all in vain. The above act of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared before this Commission and filed their respective written statements

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement submitted that to implement the PMFBY scheme, premium amount was debited from the KCC account of complainant on 30.07.2018 for khariff 2018 amounting to Rs.2167.67 and same was remitted to OP No.2 in their account No.0248002100026568 through Electronic Transfer bearing UTR No.OM923659 on 31.07.2018 itself along with premium amount of other farmers also. Consolidated crop insurance premium of Rs.688608.84 was remitted on 31.07.2018 in the account of OP No.2. Soft copy of consolidated list of farmers/proposals/declarations pertaining to different villages (who were loanee farmer of PNB) including that of present complainant was prepared by OP No.1 and same was also sent to OP No.2.

5.                OP No.2, in its written statement stated raised preliminary objections regarding No coverage of alleged loss; General Exclusions; Not maintainable for want of jurisdiction; Non intimation; Non submission of proof of loss or weather report; Limited Coverage as per scheme; Privity of Contract; Impleading of Necessary Parties; Complicated facts and law of contract; Right to file Amended reply etc. It is further submitted on merits that in the present complaint, complainant is claiming for paddy crop of village Sadarheri. As per yield data of village Sadarheri, provided by Government, Actual yield (3841.98) is more than the threshold yield (3742.2). So, the complainant was not entitled for yield loss as per terms and conditions of the scheme. Moreover, under localized based claim, as per record/data provided by OP No.3, the village level loss of village Sadarheri is NIL i.e. “0” and the final affected area is also NIL. So, the complainant is also not entitled for the localized claim, as per terms and conditions of the scheme. Hence, complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.

6.                OP No.3, in its written statement stated that OP never assured the complainant to reimburse the loss within 1-2 months. Moreover, these is no liability to pay any compensation to the complainant on account of damages of crops. Rest of the contents of the complaint are denied.

7.                However, it is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the complaint, complainant filed an application for amendment of complaint by amending the bank account number from 1925000100071305 to 1925008800000139 and premium  amount of Rs.10305.99 to 2167/-, which was allowed and necessary corrections has been done in the main complaint.  

8.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C5.

9.                On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Annexure R-5 to Annexure R-14. OP No.2, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure R-15 & Annexure R-16. OP No.3, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4.

10.              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

11.              Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession. The complainant has an account No.1925008800000139 with OP No.1, who had insured his crop under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (for short “PMFBY”) for the year 2018-19 vide policy No.401061801507606715, after deducting Rs.2167/- from his said account. He further argued that the complainant sown paddy crop in khariff season 2018, but due to heavy rainfall, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined due to rainwater lodging and reported the matter to Block Agriculture Officer, Cheeka, who in return inspected his fields along with officials of OP No.2 and assessed 30-40% damage to his paddy crop, as such, he is entitled for claim amount of Rs.2,10,000/-. The complainant approached the OPs various times with a request to release the claim amount, but all in vain. The above act of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part.

12.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that to implement the PMFBY scheme, premium amount was debited from the KCC account of complainant on 30.07.2018 for khariff 2018 amounting to Rs.2167.67 and same was remitted to OP No.2 in their account NO.0248002100026568 through Electronic Transfer bearing UTR No.OM923659 on 31.07.2018 itself along with premium amount of other farmers also. Consolidated crop insurance premium of Rs.688608.84 was remitted on 31.07.2018 in the account of OP No.2. Soft copy of consolidated list of farmers/proposals/declarations pertaining to different villages (who were loanee farmer of PNB) including that of present complainant was prepared by OP No.1 and same was also sent to OP No.2

13.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that in the present complaint, complainant is claiming for paddy crop of village Sadarheri. As per yield data of village Sadarheri, provided by Government, Actual yield (3841.98) is more than the threshold yield (3742.2). So, the complainant was not entitled for yield loss as per terms and conditions of the scheme. Moreover, under localized based claim, as per record/data provided by OP No.3, the village level loss of village Sadarheri is NIL i.e. “0” and the final affected area is also NIL. So, the complainant is also not entitled for the localized claim, as per terms and conditions of the scheme. Hence, complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.

14.              There is no dispute that the complainant is an agriculturist and having a bank account with OP No.1 bank bearing account No.1925008800000139, who deducted Rs.2167/- on 30.07.2018 from the said account, on account of premium for ‘PMFBY’ for Rabbi 2018-19, as is evident from Statement of Account Annexure C-5. 

15.              The grievance of the complainant is that he sown paddy crop in khariff season 2018, but due to heavy rainfall, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined, due to rainwater lodging and he reported the matter to Block Agriculture Officer, Cheeka, who inspected his fields along with officials of OP No.2 and assessed 30-40% damage to his paddy crop, but the OPs failed to release the said claim amount, to him, despite repeated requests made by him.

16.              On the other hand, OP No.1 bank has admitted about debiting the amount of Rs.2167.67 for khariff 2018, from the account of complainant and remitted the same to OP No.2, through Electronic Transfer on 31.07.2018 itself along with premium amount of other farmers also, as is evident from documents Annexure R-13 and Annexure R-14 respectively. In this way, from above pleadings, we found that the role of OP No.1 bank was only to deduct the premium amount, under PMFBY scheme from the bank account of complainant and remit the same timely to OP No.2 insurance company and in the present case, OP No.1 has done the same, hence, we found no deficiency in service, on the part of OP No.1 bank.

17.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for OP No.2 has simply contended that complainant is claiming for paddy crop of village Sadarheri, but as per yield data of village Sadarheri, provided by Government, Actual yield (3841.98) is more than the threshold yield (3742.2), so, complainant was not entitled for yield loss as per terms and conditions of the scheme. But this contention of the learned counsel for OP No.2, has no force, because, as per report Mark-X, produced by OP NO.3 Agriculture Department, claim based on Localized Survey of complainant comes to Rs.6652.8 per acre. Since OP No.2 has duly received and accepted the premium amount for khariff 2018 of complainant, through OP No.1, therefore, OP No.2 is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant, for any loss suffered to his khariff crop, under the said scheme. In the present case, crops of complainant was destroyed and he demanded the claim amount, as per PMFBY scheme from OP No.2, then it refused to pay the same, on this flimsy ground, which amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. As such, the OP No.2 insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount, to the complainant, for the loss, suffered by the complainant, due to destruction/damage of his crop.

18.               Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? As per Mark-X, the Agriculture Department has assessed the based on Localized Survey to the tune of Rs.6652.8. Further, as per Loss Assessment Report Annexure C-1, the insured land of complainant was 3 acres. Hence, for 3 acre loss, complainant is entitled for the total amount of Rs.19,958.4 (Rs.6652.8 x 3 acre), which shall be paid, by OP No.2, to the complainant along with compensation amount + litigation expenses.          

19.              Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.19,958.4, along with compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant, within 45 days, from today, failing which, the award amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization. Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.     

20.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings 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. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:21.12.2023.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

                                                (Suman Rana).              

                                                Member.

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.