Haryana

Kaithal

22/21

Dinesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Naveen Bidhan

21 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 22 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:   27.01.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:      21.12.2023.

 

Dinesh Kumar s/o Shri Balbir Singh, r/o VPO Jakholi, District Kaithal.

 

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                      Versus

 

1. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jakholi, District Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department, Kaithal Office at Room No.305, Secretariat, Kaithal.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

         

                  

Present:       Shri Naveen Bidhan, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri Karan Kalra, 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 and owned and possessed land measuring 3 acres, out of total land measuring 178 kanal 10 marla in village Jakholi. He has an account No.0714008800020628 with OP No.1, who had insured his crop under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (for short “PMFBY”) after deducting Rs.1168.86 on 11.07.2019 from his said account. He sown paddy crop in khariff season 2018, but due to untimely heavy rainfall in the area on 23/24.09.2018, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined due to rainwater lodging. He reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected his fields along with officials of OP No.2 and took the photographs of fields and assessed 60% damage of his paddy crop. After waiting sufficiently, he met with OPs to pay 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 of Rs.1168.86 was debited from the respective KCC account of complainant on 15.12.2018 for rabi 2018-19 and remitted the same to OP No.2 itself along with premium amount of other farmers also. 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 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 that in the present complaint, complainant is claiming for paddy crop of village Jakholi. As per yield data of village Jakholi, provided by Government, Actual yield (2595.56525) is more than the threshold yield (2343.42). So, the complainant was/is not entitled for yield loss as per terms and conditions of the scheme (21.1.1). Moreover, under localized based claim, as per data provided by OP No.3, OP No.2 processed the claim as per guidelines of the scheme and passed the claim of Rs.15828.75, which was paid to OP No.1 PNB, who later on as per guidelines deposited the same in the account of complainant. So, the complainant is also not entitled for the localized claim, if any. 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, there is no liability to pay any compensation to the complainant on account of damages of crops. Rest of the contents of the complaint is denied.

7.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C12.

8.                On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Annexure R-8 to Annexure R-13. OP No.2, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure R-5 to Annexure R-7. OP No.3, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4.

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

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned and possessed land measuring 3 acres, out of total land measuring 178 kanal 10 marla in village Jakholi. He further argued that the complainant has an account No.0714008800020628 with OP No.1, who had insured his crop under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (for short “PMFBY”) after deducting Rs.1168.86 on 11.07.2019, from his said account. He further argued that the complainant sown paddy crop in khariff season 2018, but due to untimely heavy rainfall in the area on 23/24.09.2018, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined, and he reported the matter to OP No.3, who inspected his fields along with officials of OP No.2 and assessed 60% damage of his paddy crop. He further argued that after waiting sufficiently, the complainant met with OPs to pay the claim amount, but all in vain.

11.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that to implement the PMFBY scheme, premium amount was debited from the respective KCC account of complainant on 15.12.2018 for rabi 2018-19 and remitted the same to OP No.2 itself along with premium amount of other farmers also. 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.

12.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that in the present complaint, complainant is claiming for paddy crop of village Jakholi. As per yield data of village Jakholi, provided by Government, Actual yield (2595.56525) is more than the threshold yield (2343.42). So, the complainant was/is not entitled for yield loss as per terms and conditions of the scheme (21.1.1). Moreover, under localized based claim, as per data provided by OP No.3, OP No.2 processed the claim as per guidelines of the scheme and passed the claim of Rs.15828.75, which was paid to OP No.1 PNB, who later on as per guidelines deposited the same in the account of complainant. So, the complainant is also not entitled for the localized claim, if any. Hence, complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.

13.              There is no dispute that the complainant is an agriculturist and having a bank account bearing account No.0714008800020628, with OP No.1, who deducted Rs.1168.86 on 11.07.2019, from the said account, on account of premium under ‘PMFBY’ for khariff season, as is evident from Statement of Account produced by the complainant as Annexure C-3. 

14.              The grievance of the complainant is that, he sown paddy crop in khariff season 2018, but due to untimely heavy rainfall, in the area on 23/24.09.2018, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined and thereafter, OP No.3 assessed 60% damage to his paddy crop, but the OPs failed to release the claim amount, to him, despite repeated requests, made by him.

15.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 bank has contended that OP No.1 has debited the amount of Rs.1168.86 for khariff 2018-19, from the account of complainant and remitted the same to OP No.2, as is evident from document Annexure R-9. In this way, 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.

16.               Now coming to liability of OP No.2 insurance company. Learned counsel for OP No.2 has firstly contended that as per yield data of village Jakholi, provided by Government, Actual yield (2595.56525) is more than the threshold yield (2343.42), so, the complainant is 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 Annexure R-1, produced by OP No.3 Agriculture Department, claim based on Localized Survey of complainant comes to Rs.9095.32 per acre. Since OP No.2 has duly received and accepted the premium amount for khariff 2018-19 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? Learned counsel for OP No.2 has further contended that under localized based claim, as per data provided by OP No.3, OP No.2 processed and passed the claim of Rs.15828.75, which was paid to OP No.1, vide document Annexure R-7. In this regard, learned counsel for the complainant has admitted about receiving the said amount from OP No.2, but he submitted that the said amount of Rs.15828.75/-, is lesser than the amount, as claimed by the complainant. He further submitted that the said amount has been paid by OP No.2, in the account of complainant on 31.08.2021 i.e. after the filing of present complaint i.e. on 27.01.2021. He urged that OP No.2 be directed to pay the full claim amount to the complainant along with delayed interest.  

19.              In his complaint, complainant alleged that he suffered loss in 3 acres of land, whereas, as per document Annexure R-2, produced by OP No.3 Agriculture Department, the “Area Loss” of complainant was 2.5 acres. Furthermore, as per document Annexure R-5, produced by OP No.2 insurance company, the “Damage Area Reported by Farmer” is 1 hectare i.e. 2.47 acres. Hence, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the damaged area of complainant was 2.5 acres instead of 3 acres.

20.              As per report Annexure R-1, OP No.3 Agriculture Department has assessed the claim of complainant based on Localized Survey to the tune of Rs.9095.32 per acre. Hence, for 2.5 acre loss, complainant is entitled for total amount of Rs.22738.3 (Rs.9095.32 x 2.5 acre). Since OP No.2 has already paid Rs.15828/-, to the complainant, therefore, OP No.2 is liable to pay the balance claim amount of Rs.6910.3 along with compensation amount + litigation expenses, to the complainant.

21.              Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct OP No.2-insurance company to pay the balance amount of Rs.6910.3, along with compensation amount + 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.     

22.              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.