Haryana

Kaithal

312/19

Rameshwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Devender Gorsi

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.312 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 25.09.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:03.08.2022.

Rameshwar son of Sh. Mangat Ram, r/o Kawartan, Tehsil Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Timber Market through its Manager, Distt. Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Jagadhari Road, Ambala through its Manager.

….Respondents.

3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal, Office at Secretariat, Kaithal.

..Performa Respt.

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Devender Gorsi, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Karan Kalra, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

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

                Smt. Ruchika, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Rameshwar-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 107 Kanals 13 Marlas acre of agriculture land situated at Village Kawartan Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.4812008800009907 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant of Kharif 2018 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amounts of Rs.3866.77 paise and Rs.2087.32 paise respectively as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in the month of 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 20% to 30% damage of paddy crop of 3 acres of land only out of total 13 acres of land.  The complainant has suffered a loss of approximately Rs.1,13,100/- i.e. Rs.8700/- per acre for 13 acres of land.  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.  Respondent No.1 filed the written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; to implement the scheme of PMFBY, premium amounts were debited from respective KCC account of complainant on 09.08.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018-19 and such premium amount was remitted to the respondent No.2 itself alongwith premium amount of other farmers i.e. 236 farmers and premium amount of Rs.6,07,710.84 paise was credited in the account of respondent No.2 in their account No.024802100026568 vide TM No.M811438 dt. 09.08.2018 and data of all the farmers was also feeded by respondent No.1 at NCIP Portal.  It is further stated that on date premium amount on behalf of present complainant has been retained by the respondent No.2.  In fact, the wrong amount of premium has been reversed by respondent No.2 which is remitted back to the account of respondent No.2 and till now the amount of premium paid to respondent No.2 was withheld with the respondent No.2 and has not been returned to respondent No.1 despite of many reminders and requests.  The claim amount would be paid by the respondent No.2 to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this commission; that the complainant is allegedly claiming for paddy crop of Village Kawartan which was allegedly insured through respondent No.1-bank, that in fact, the land of 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. of Village Kawartan to the answering respondent due to the reasons best known to them.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant has not provided or placed on record copy of insurance policy and in the absence of policy particulars like policy number, date of issuance and expiry and its insurance area, answering respondent cannot be held liable.  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-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3,  respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW4/A alongwith documents Annexure-R4 to Annexure-R9 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             Sh. Devender Gorsi, Adv. for the complainant has stated that 2.63 hectare land is lying in Kawartan Village but due to clerical mistake, the bank authorities have given the wrong name of village i.e. Kawartan to Narar.  Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for the Oriental Insurance Company-respondent No.2 has argued that if wrong data is feeded by the bank, then the concerned bank shall have to pay the compensation to the complainant as decided by meeting of banks under “PMFBY” dt. 14.01.2021.

9.             Sh. Karan Kalra, Adv. for the Punjab National Bank-respondent No.1 has stated that the concerned bank has remitted the credited amount of Rs.13,80,104/- to the insurance company on 04.07.2019.  It is clarified that PNB T.M. Kaithal Claim reversed dt. 22.04.2019.  Meaning thereby that the insurance company had sent the amount of Rs.13,80,104/- to the P.N.B., Kaithal.  But the P.N.B. T.M.Kaithal had reversed that amount of Rs.13,80,104/- on 04.07.2019 to the insurance company.  Now insurance company is having the aforesaid amount in its custody.  This amount belongs to 236 farmers.  4% service charge was claimed by the bank from the insurance company for this wrong/mistake for sending the wrong names of the villages of 236 farmers to which the insurance money was to be given.  Sh. Karan Kalra, Adv. for the P.N.B., Kaithal-respondent No.1 has placed reliance upon the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Gujarat State Consumers’ Protection Centre and another Vs. General Insurance Corporation of India and others, 2005(2) CPC 209 and Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Irawati and another bearing Revision Petition No.783 of 2008 decided on 07.05.2014 in complaint case No.1552 of 2006.  The said authorities have been perused and duly considered by us.   

10.              Ld. counsel for the insurance company-respondent No.2 has placed reliance upon the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & another Vs. Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & another, 2015(4) CLT 545; Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Agricultural Insurance Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Hem Shankar, 2017(1) CPJ 538; Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission in case titled as Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. Vs. Sri Chikkala Satyanarayana, 2017(4) CPJ 1 and Hon’ble Gujarat State Commission in case titled as General Manager, General Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mer Lakhman Ramde Odedara 2004(2) CPJ 770.  The said authorities have been duly considered by us but facts of these cases are distinguishable from the facts of present case because in the present case, Insurance Company is having all the amounts of insurance premium as-well-as claim amount wrongly with it as P.N.B. Kaithal had returned the amount of Rs.13,80,104 on 04.07.2019 to the Insurance Company-respondent No.2.

11.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the amount of Rs.27,996/- shall be given to the complainant-Rameshwar alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization which shall be given by insurance company-respondent No.2.  However, for the mistake of wrong names of villages, P.N.B. Kaithal shall pay the service charge of 4% which were charged by P.N.B. Kaithal from Oriental Insurance Company shall be given by Punjab National Bank, Kaithal to the Oriental Insurance Company by way of penalty alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date when it was charged by P.N.B., Kaithal-respondent No.1 from Insurance Company-respondent No.2.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted with cost.  The cost is assessed as Rs.11,000/- which will be paid by Punjab National Bank, Kaithal-respondent No.1 to the complainant. 

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 both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.            

Announced in open court:

Dt.:03.08.2022.

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.