Haryana

Kaithal

259/21

Sudesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Atul Gupta

01 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No. 259/2021

                                                     Date of institution: 22.10.2021

                                                     Date of decision:01.08.2023.

Sudesh age about 43 years son of Shri Ram Kumar, Resident of Village Khurana District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Siwan, District 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.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                    SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Atul Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                OP No. 1 exparte.

                Sh. Amit Kaushik, Advocate for the OP No. 2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, GP for the OP No. 3.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Sudesh-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 the complainant is agriculturist by profession and owned agriculture land measuring 71 Kanal 06 Marla (8.7 acre) situated at revenue area of Village Khurana, Distt. Kaithal, as per the details mentioned in the para no. 1 of the complaint. The complainant has an account No.07265111007611 with the OP No. 1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of Kharif (paddy) for the period 2018-19 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.5247/- on 27.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in that area on 23/24.09.2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined. The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and the loss of paddy crops was assessed upto the extent of 70-80% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land.  The complainant 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 No.2 & 3 appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately, whereas OP No.1 appeared initially but did not appear on 05.08.2022, so, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 05.08.2022 passed by this Commission.   

4.             OP No. 2 filed the written version mentioning therein that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Khurana, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Rain Water Logging” 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 absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim; that as per yield data of Village Khurana provided by Government, average yield (3072.21) is greater than the threshold yield (2553.30) of block Kaithal.  So, the complainant was not entitled for any yield loss. Moreover, under localized based claim, complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to answering OP within stipulated period of 48 hours of alleged loss to process the claim as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent. The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             OP 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 OP randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint

6.             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.

7.             On the other hand, OP No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and thereafter closed the evidence. OP No. 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and thereafter closed the same.

8.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and owned agriculture land measuring 71 Kanal 06 Marla (8.7 acre) situated at revenue area of Village Khurana, Distt. Kaithal. The complainant has an account No.07265111007611 with the OP No. 1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of Kharif (paddy) for the period 2018-19 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.5247/- on 27.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in that area on 23/24.09.2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined. The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and the loss of paddy crops was assessed upto the extent of 70-80% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land.  The complainant 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.

10.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.2-Insurance Company has argued that as per yield data of Village Khurana provided by Government, average yield (3072.21) is greater than the threshold yield (2553.30) of block Kaithal.  So, the complainant was not entitled for any yield loss. Moreover, under localized based claim, complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to answering OP within stipulated period of 48 hours of alleged loss to process the claim as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  It is further argued that no intimation regarding loss was given by the complainant to the Agriculture Department.  It is further argued that the report of loss to the extent of 45% as assessed by the OP No.3-Agriculture Department is wrong because at the time of survey in the village, “Crop not found”.       

11.            Sh. Pushpinder Saini, GP for the OP No.3-Agriculture Department has stated that the claim does not arise on average yield because in the present case, average yield is greater than threshold yield.  He has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT at the time of arguments, which is Mark-A on the file.   

12.            The first objection raised by ld. counsel for the OP No.2-insurance company is that intimation regarding loss was not given by the complainant to the Agriculture Department.  To rebut the said contention, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the law laid down in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Puran etc. (supra), wherein it is held by Hon’ble National Commission that “Plea of insurance company that no privity of contract between petitioner and complainants and no intimation of loss given-Admittedly, premium for crop insurance came to be paid from accounts of complainant-Therefore, it cannot be said that complainants are not consumers of petitioner company-Further, in view of alleged failure to intimate loss to insurer, written version filed by State Bank of India before District Forum shows that scheme did not envisage any such intimation-Therefore, revision petitions dismissed with liberty to petitioner company to avail such remedy as may be open to it in law against concerned Govt.”  The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case as the premium of Rs.5247/- was deducted by the OP No.1-bank from the account of complainant under the PMFBY scheme.  So, the contention of OP No.2-insurance company that no intimation was given has no force.  The other objection raised by ld. counsel for the OP No.2-insurance company is that how the OP No.3-Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the extent of 45% in the report Mark-A, whereas as per survey of other farmers on village level as per Annexure-C2, it is clearly mentioned that “Crop not found”, so, the said assessment of loss is wrongly made by the Agriculture Department.  In this regard, the representative of Agriculture Department namely Dr. Ruchika was called personally in the court, who has stated that the survey was conducted by the team of Agriculture Department in the village Khurana.  The surveyor namely Baljinder Kumar was also present at the time of survey in the village survey and she alongwith surveyor namely Baljinder Kumar have also put their signatures on the said survey report i.e. Annexure-C2.  So, the said contention of OP No.2-Insurance Company that the wrong assessment was made by Agriculture Department, has no force.  In the present case, the complainant has occurred loss in 8.7 acre.  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 the OP No.1 bank, but nothing has been done on the part of OP No.2 and this Commission rely 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”.  

13.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was the required for OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmers concerned to OP No.1 bank after pointing out any discrepancy on its end, within the period of cut off 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 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 them due to destruction of their crop.

14.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8553.6 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 8.7 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.74,416/- (Rs.8553.60 paise x 8.7 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Insurance Company.        

15.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.74,416/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  The OP No.2-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against OP No.2 and dismissed against OPs No.1 & 3.     

16.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP 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.:01.08.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar