Haryana

Kaithal

398/19

Dhira - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ramesh Kasan

16 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.398 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 27.11.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:16.12.2022.

Dhira son of Beer Singh, resident of Village Kasan, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Jakholi Branch, through its Branch Manager.
2. Oriental General Insurance Company Kaithal, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Kaithal.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Ramesh Kasan, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Dinesh Kumar Dhull, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Dhira-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned 4 acre of agriculture land situated at Village Kasan, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.0714008800019817 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the paddy crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2017-18 with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.2171.34 paise on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant requested the Ops to pay the claim amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  Respondents No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the premium amount of Rs.2171.34 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif-2018 and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Alongwith cumulative crop insurance premium amount of Rs.28,15,777.64, consolidated detailed list of farmers/proposals/declarations pertaining to different villages (who were loanee farmer of respondent No.1 bank) including that of present complainant were prepared/uploaded on PMFBY Portal within prescribed time/cut off date by respondent No.1 and such consolidated proposal/list of farmers/declaration were also submitted to respondent No.2 well within time.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint..

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that as per record, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected due to the reason mentioned as “Rain Fall” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme and to prove the same, no documentary proof of any kind has been annexed with the complaint; that role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institutions that are part of this scheme.  In fact, the land of complainant is not insured with the answering respondent as his bank has not uploaded the true and correct data of complainant on National Crop Insurance Portal of Govt. of India or supply any proposal form etc. of Village Guhla to the answering respondent due to the reasons best known to them.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Respondent No.3 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the loss was assessed randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2, Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure-R3 to Annexure-R7 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

7.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             ­­­­Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and he has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.7669.74 paise per acre.  Hence, for 3 acre 5 kanal 4 marla loss, the complainant is entitled for the total amount of Rs.27,995/- (Rs.23,009/- for 3 acre+Rs.4794/- for 5 Kanal+Rs.192/- for 4 marla).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.27,995/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted with cost.  The cost is assessed as Rs.5500/- which will be paid by the respondent No.2-insurance company to the complainant.     

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent No.2 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 record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:16.12.2022.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.