Haryana

Kaithal

147/20

Karambir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kirpal Singh

22 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.147 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 17.06.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:22.02.2023.

Karambir S/o Kol Singh r/o Village Kichhana, Sub Tehsil Rajound, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jakholi, 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.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

               

Present:     Sh. Kirpal Singh, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

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

                Sh. Sunil Kumar, P.O. Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Karambir-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 and possessed land measuring 6.1 acre (49 Kanal), detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.0714008800011958 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2018-19 with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.3654.85 paise on 30.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 23 and 24 September, 2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined due to “Rainwater lodging”.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to respondent No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of complainant alongwith officials of respondent No.2 and assessed 100% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land.  The complainant requested the respondents 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.3654.85 paise qua kharif 2018 crop was debited from KCC account of complainant on 30.07.2018.  Lateron, consolidated premium of Rs.2815777.64 paise, which also includes the aforesaid premium amount of Rs.3654.85 paise was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account No.0248002100026568 on 13.08.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  It is relevant to mention here that it was the duty of respondent No.2 to compulsorily verify and to reconcile the data and to take necessary information and action regarding insurance policy of farmers, including that of present complainant, through National Crop Insurance Portal within stipulated data/cut off date and in case of any deficiency/mismatch same would have to be reported to concerned bank branch.  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 averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Kichana, District Kaithal, due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy 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; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in the absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that in fact the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent as his bank has not uploaded the data of complainant on National Crop Insurance Portal of Govt. of India or supply any proposal form etc. to the answering respondent due to the reasons best know to them.  It is pertinent to mention here that the excess amount of premium received from respondent No.1-bank by answering respondent was refunded back on time.  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 fields of complainant as-well-as other farmers were inspected by the officials of answering respondent 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-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R4 to Annexure-R16, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R17 to Annexure-R20 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             Sh. Kirpal Singh, Adv. for the complainant has stated that vide Annexure-C1, which is the bank account statement of complainant, the premium of Rs.3654.85 paise has been sent to P.N.B.-respondent No.1 which has forwarded the same to insurance company-respondent No.2. 

9.             Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company has argued that the land of complainant is not insured with the respondent-insurance company as his bank has not uploaded the data of complainant on National Crop Insurance Portal of Govt. of India or supply any proposal form etc. to the respondent due to the reasons best know to them.  He has further argued that the premium amount was refunded to the respondent No.1-P.N.B.

10.            Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the respondent No.1 has stated that the premium amount qua kharif 2018 crop was debited from KCC account of complainant on 30.07.2018 amounting to Rs.3654.85 paise and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account No.0248002100026568 of PNB on 13.08.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  He has placed reliance upon the authority laid down by Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sukhwinder Singh etc. bearing first appeal No.528 of 2018 which has been decided on 19.07.2019 in which order of refund was given to indemnify the complainant as respondent No.2-Reliance General Insurance Company was having the amount of premium and respondent No.2-Insurance Company gave notice of refund of the premium only after the loss had occurred to the complainant.  Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the respondent No.1-P.N.B. has further argued that the cut-off date was 15.12.2018 and premium was refunded by the insurance company on 08.08.2019 i.e. after cut-off date.  He has drawn our attention towards meeting of banks as per Annexure-R10 under “PMFBY” dt. 11.09.2019, wherein it is mentioned in clause “d” as under:-

                “Cases where banks did not enter data on portal, but premium is deposited to Insurance Companies in time and premium is not returned by the Insurance Company in time, then Insurance Company will have to pay the claim.”  

11.            Sh. Sunil Kumar, PO 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.6515.94 paise per acre.  Hence, for 5.5 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.35,838/- (Rs.6515.94 paise x  5.5 acre).      

12.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.35,838/- 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 to the complainant.  It is made clear that the respondent No.1-bank will pay the premium amount of Rs.3654.85 paise to the respondent No.2-insurance company which was already deducted by the respondent No.1 from the account of 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.:22.02.2023.  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

                (Suman Rana),          

                Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.