Haryana

Kaithal

38/20

Ishwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajesh Majra

29 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.38 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 21.01.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:29.08.2022.

Ishwar Singh S/o Sh. Kali Ram, r/o Village Nandkaran Majra, Block Rajound, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch at Village Jakholi, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office at Dhand Road near I.D.B.I. Bank Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal through its General Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department Kaithal, Office at Room No.305, Mini Secretariat, 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. Rajesh Majra, Advocate for the complainant.   

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

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

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

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Ishwar Singh-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 53 Kanals 9 Marlas acre of agriculture land situated at Village Nand Karan Majra Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.0714008800021830 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the paddy crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.3026.50 paise as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 22, 23 and 24 September, 2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant reported the matter to the respondent No.3 and the officials of respondents No.3 in return inspected the agriculture fields of complainant and assessed 55% to 60% damage of paddy crop of complainant as-well-as other farmers also.  The complainant has suffered a loss of approximately Rs.1,00,000/-.  The complainant requested the Ops to pay the said 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 answering respondent has deducted the premium amount from the loan account for the benefit of the farmers and the same was paid to the respondents No.2 & 3 under the scheme of “Prime Minister Fasal/Crops Bima Yojna”, hence deficiency if any is on the part of respondent No.2.  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 in Village Majra Nand Karan, 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, as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Agricultural Department (Haryana Govt.), the actual yield is more than the threshold yield, hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that till date no intimation has been received by answering respondent regarding loss of alleged crop.  The other 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 answering respondent received so many applications regarding damage of crops and found that there was no crop standing in the fields as stated by the farmers, 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 Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C13 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2, Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R3 & Annexure-R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             Sh. Rajesh Majra, Adv. for the complainant has stated that vide Annexure-C1, which is the bank account statement of complainant, the premium of Rs.3026.50 paise has been sent to P.N.B.-respondent No.1 which has forwarded the same to insurance company-respondent No.2. 

9.             Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Adv. alongwith Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company have argued that complainant is not insured with the respondent-insurance company.  It has been further argued that the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Majra Nand Karan, 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.

10.            Sh. Dinesh Kumar Dhull, Adv. for the respondent No.1 has stated that the premium amount of Rs.3026.50 paise was deducted from the loan account of complainant and the same was paid to the respondent No.2-insurance company.    

11.            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, which is mentioned as under:-

Claim based on Localized Survey:

Intimation Received for Localized Claim          = Yes

Type of Survey                                           = Village Level

According to farmer loss percentage of paddy

Crop in survey report (Approx.)                     =53%

 

Cost of Cultivation                                       =Rs.46950/-per hect.

 

Cost of Cultivation                                       =Rs.19008/-per acre

 

Approx. Claim for 1 Acre                      =19008x53/100=Rs.10074.24

 

                        In the present case, the complainant has suffered loss in 6 acre as per record.  So, as per above-mentioned crop claim based on Village survey submitted by Agriculture Department, Kaithal, Rs.10074.24 paise per acre is awarded to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.60,445.44 paise (Rs.10074.24 paise x 6 acre).      

12.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.60,445.44 paise to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 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.     

13.            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.:29.08.2022.

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.