Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/384/2019

Nihal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

K.K Jangra

07 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.384 of 2019.                                                             

Date of Instt.: 09.09.2019.                                                                         Date of Decision: 07.08.2023.

Nihal Singh son of Jetha Ram son of Hira resident of village Bangaon, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

2.Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, plot No.EL-94 KLS Power TTC Industrial Area, MIDC, Nahape, Navi Mumbai-400710 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director/Managing Director/authorised person.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.K.K.Jangra, Advocate for complainant.                                                         Sh.C.B.Narang, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                     Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.2.                                                   

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                                                    DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is owner in possession of land as mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint situated at Village Bangaon Tehsil & Fatehabad. It is alleged that the complainant had sown cotton crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facilities with account No.0653008800018669; that the complainant got the standing cotton crop insured with the Op No.2 on 31.07.2018 and in this regard insurance premium to the tune of Rs.2910/- was debited from his account by Op No.1 and credited in the account of Op No.2; that the standing crops of the complainant got damaged and regarding this the concerned department had assessed the loss the tune of Rs.32,800/- per hectare; that despite several requests the claim for damaged insured crop has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainant has suffered great financial losses. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.                          Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to suppression of material facts, cause of action, maintainability and jurisdiction; that amount of premium of Rs.2910.09/- for insuring the crop of the complainant was debited on 31.07.20128 from the loan account of the complainant as per his disclosure and thereafter it was sent to Op no.2/insurance company without any delay, therefore, the insurance company is liable to make the payment of loss of crop, if any; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.

3.                          Op No.2 filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that due to non providing of bank account details, claim details, assessment details and repudiation letter by the complainant, the replying Op is facing difficulty  for tracing out the claim file of the complainant, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Other contentions of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of tendered affidavit of Sh.Parshant Vinod Shukla, Manager Legal Ex.RA whereas OP No.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Rajender Prasad Sarbate, Branch Manager Annexure R1.

5.                          We have heard oral final arguments from both sides and perused the case file minutely.

6.                          It has been argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant had sown ‘cotton’ crops in his land, which was duly insured, under PMFBY with OP No.2, but when his crop got damaged, no compensation on account of insured crop was given to him despite the fact that it has completed all the formalities with regard to compensation of damaged cotton crop.

7.                          On the other hand learned counsel for the Op No.2/insurance company has argued that the complainant has not provided any bank detail, repudiation letter any other particulars, therefore, his claim filed could not be traced out, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and there remains no liability to pay any claim/compensation to the farmer.

8.                          Learned counsel for the complainant has produced on case file the loss assessment report prepared by the concerned Agriculture Department wherein loss to the cotton crop in village Bangaon has been assessed at Rs.32803.33(Annexure C2) per hectare.

9.                          The arguments put-forth by learned counsel for the Op No.1/insurance company is devoid of merits, therefore, same are hereby rejected.  Since the insurance company had accepted the payment qua insurance premium of crop and kept the same with it meaning thereby that OP No.2/insurance company had accepted the premium without any objection and now when the damage to the crop of complainant has been caused, then OP No.2/insurance company arbitrarily and illegally denying to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. So, the OP No.2/insurance company is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.2/ insurance company only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainant for Kharif 2017 season and Op no.1/bank is not found responsible in this regard.  There is nothing on the file to show that the complainant had ever intimated about the loss to the Ops within stipulated period as per the guidelines of the government with regard to loss of crop, therefore, localized claim has been rejected.

10.                        Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant has suffered loss of sown crop in 4.99 acre (2.021 hectare) and the concerned Agriculture Department in its report has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.32803/- per hectare (Annexure C2), therefore, it would be just and proper to give compensation to the complainant as assessed by the concerned agriculture department in its report on yield basis.

11.                        Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against OP No.2/insurance company with a direction as follows:

(1)                        To pay an amount of Rs.66319/- as insurance claim amount to the complainant for the damages of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018, sown by him in 4 acre of land.

(2)                        To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rs.Eleven Thousand) towards compensation for harassment and mental agony etc. suffered by the complainant as well as for litigation expenses.

                             The amount mentioned at Sr. No. (1) would carry simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the compliant till actual payment.  The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the entire amount mentioned at Sr. Nos. (1) & (2) above would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, no deficiency is found on the part of OP no.1/bank, therefore, complaint against Op No.1/bank stands dismissed. 

12.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents 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. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated:07.08.2023

 

                                                                                                        

                    (K.S.Nirana)                              (Rajbir Singh)                                                              Member                               President