Haryana

Kaithal

96/21

Karam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.G.S Rana

23 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 96 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:   05.04.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:      23.11.2023.

 

Karam Singh s/o Shri Rashala s/o Shri Tuhiya, r/o village Kaul, Sub Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                   Versus

 

1. The Manager, Punjab National Bank (formerly working as Oriental Bank of Commerce) village Kaul, Distt. 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.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

                  

Present:       Shri G.S. Rana, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri R.K. Nagpal, Adv. for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. 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 complainant is an agriculturist and having agriculture land measuring 34 kanal 7 marla in village Kaul. He was also having an account No.0797008800006047 in OP No.1 branch, who got insured his crop for Kharif 2018 vide policy No.040106181152291202701 under the scheme Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.1839.40 on 29.07.2017 as insurance premium amount. It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall on 24.09.2018 in the area, his khariff crop was damaged. He reported the matter to OP No.3 conducted the survey of damaged crops and assured that he will get his insurance amount earliest possible. He 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 OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.    

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

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement stated that an amount of Rs.2521.05 for PMFBY was debited from the account No.0797008800006047 of complainant on 31.07.2018 and same was remitted to OP No.2 insurance company who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any. The OP No.1 has got no concern with the alleged claim.

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 on merits that it is denied that alleged land of complainant was insured with OP No.2 for the period 2018-19. Complainant never intimated about the alleged loss within stipulated period to OPs and the alleged loss if any due to heavy rain is also not covered under PMFBY scheme 2018-19. Moreover, as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Government (Agriculture Department), there is no shortfall in the yield, the actual yield (3418.34) is more than the threshold yield (2660.4), hence nothing is payable by the insurance company under the scheme and complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

6.                OP No.3, in its written statement stated that complainant never met with OP No.3 in this regard. There is no responsibility of OP No.3 to pay any compensation.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

7.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C11.

8.                On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Annexure R7 to Annexure R13. OP No.2 in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A along with documents Annexure R-5 & Annexure R-6. OP No.3 in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A along with documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4.

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

10.              Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is an agriculturist and having agriculture land measuring 34 kanal 7 marla in village Kaul. The complainant was also having an account No.0797008800006047  in OP No.1 branch, who got insured his crop for Kharif 2018 vide policy No.040106181152291202701 under the scheme Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.2521.05 on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount, but due to typographical mistake, Rs.1839.40 has been mentioned in the complaint instead of Rs.2521.05 and produced document as Mark-X on the case file i.e. copy of Account Statement of complainant’s account, wherein, Rs.2521.05 was deducted on 31.07.2018. He further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall on 24.09.2018 in the area, khariff crop of complainant was damaged and he reported the matter to OP No.3 conducted the survey of damaged crops and assured that the complainant will get his insurance amount earliest possible. The complainant requested the OPs to pay the claim amount, but they did not do so.

11.              On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.1 argued that an amount of Rs.2521.05 for PMFBY was debited from the account of complainant on 31.07.2018 and same was remitted to OP No.2 insurance company who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any. The OP No.1 has got no concern with the alleged claim.

12.              Learned counsel for OP No.2-Insurance Company has argued that complainant never intimated about the alleged loss within stipulated period to OPs and the alleged loss if any due to heavy rain is also not covered under PMFBY scheme 2018-19. Moreover, as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Government (Agriculture Department), there is no shortfall in the yield, the actual yield (3418.34) is more than the threshold yield (2660.4), hence nothing is payable by the insurance company under the scheme and complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

13.              There is no dispute that the complainant is an agriculturist and having a bank account with OP No.1 bank bearing account No.0797008800006047, who deducted Rs.2521.05 on 31.07.2018, from the said account, on account of premium for ‘PMFBY’ for khariff 2018, as is evident from Statement of Account Mark-X, produced by learned counsel for the complainant, at the time of arguments.

14.              The grievance of the complainant is that due to untimely heavy rainfall in the area, his khariff crop was damaged and he approached OP No.2 insurance company, various times, to release the claim amount, but all in vain. 15.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2-insurance company has contended that the loss of khariff crop has been affected in village Kutabpur due to the Heavy Rain Fall, which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme as mentioned in Ex.R13 Para No.4 Sub Para No.IV. i.e. “Localized Calamities; Loss/Damage resulting from occurrence of Identified localized risks of hailstorm, landslide and inundation affecting isolated farms will be covered”. But this contention of learned counsel for OP No.2 has no force, in view of sub Clause (5.1.2) of Para No.5 Coverage of Risks and Exclusions of “Operational Guidelines” of PMFBY (Revised) at Page No.4 (Mark-Z), which reads as under:-

          5.1.2: Standing Crop (Sowing to harvesting):Comprehensive risk     insurance is provided to cover yield losses due to non-preventable risks,           viz. Drought, Floor, Inundation, widespread Pests and Disease attack,          Landslides, Fire due to natural causes, Lightening, Storm, Hailstorm and    Cyclone”.

16.              Since crop of complainant was damaged due to heavy rainfall, therefore, the same falls under “Hailstorm”, whose also meaning is heavy rain. Hence, the objection raised by learned counsel for OP No.2 insurance company that khariff crop of complainant has been affected due to the Heavy Rain Fall, which do not cover under PMFBY scheme, has no force, hence same is also rejected.

17.              So far the liability is concerned; if there was any discrepancy in the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) etc. of the farmers concerned, then it was required for the OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the said amount, within two months of cutoff date, to OP No.1 bank, but nothing has been done, on the part of OP No.2 and this Commission relies upon in this regard on Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018 and its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii is relevant, which reads as under:-

“xxii) The Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the Insurance Company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim”.

 

18.              So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was required for OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmer concerned to OP No.1 bank, after pointing out any discrepancy on its end, within the period of cutoff date of two months, but in the case in hand, OP No.2 had neither raised any objection within the period of cutoff date of two months nor intimated to OP No.1 bank regarding any discrepancy in this regard and kept the premium amount with it, and now at the time when crops of complainant was destroyed and he is demanding the claim amount, as per policy from it, then OP No.2 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.

19.              In the present case, in Annexure R-1, the Agriculture Department has assessed the based on Localized Survey to the tune of Rs.9979.20. Hence, for 4.25 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the total amount of Rs.42411.6 (Rs.9979.20 x 4.25 acres), which shall be paid, by OP No.2 insurance company, to the complainant.        

20.              Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.42411.6, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization, within 45 days, from today. OP No.2-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-, on account of physical harassment and mental agony, suffered by the complainant as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges, to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.     

21.              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.:23.11.2023.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.