Haryana

Kaithal

119/20

Santosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kirpal Singh

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.119 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 12.03.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:21.11.2022.

Santosh wife of Sh. Krishan Chand @ Krishan Kumar r/o Village Balu, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, Punjab National Bank Balu, Tehsil Kalayat, 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.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Narender Ravesh, Advocate for the complainant.   

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

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

                Sh. Sunil Kumar, PO Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Santosh-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 16 kanal 5 Marla, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.1212008801018703 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.2499/- as insurance premium amount on 30.07.2018.  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.  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 90% 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.  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 30.07.2018 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 also.  It is further stated that on date premium amount on behalf of present complainant has been retained by the respondent No.2.  Respondent No.2 duly accepted the crop insurance premium on behalf of complainant and other farmers alongwith list of farmers/proposals/declarations itself through respondent No.1 bank and retained such amount as on date.  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 as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Balu & Village Dubbal, District Kaithal, 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; 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, the 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-A to Annexure-C and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R1, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure-R7 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             ­­­­Sh. Sunil Kumar, P.O. 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.5322.24 paise per acre.  Hence, for 2 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.10,644/- (Rs.5322.24 paise x  2 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.10,644/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days 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.     

10.            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.:21.11.2022.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.