Haryana

Kaithal

179/20

Telu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Anurag Gupta

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.179 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 26.06.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:27.02.2023.

Telu Ram son of Sh. Ronak Ram r/o House No.345/13, Gali No.2, Ward No.21, Amargarh Gamri, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Ambala Road, Kaithal through its Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Secretariat, Kaithal.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

               

Present:     Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. K.K.Khetarpal, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

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

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

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Telu Ram-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 10 acre and 10 marla agricultural land situated at Patti Kaiseth Seth, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.0248008800000174 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 crop of Kharif, 2018 with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.6335.70 paise on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in the month of October,  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 respondents No.1 & 2 and assessed 60% to 80% 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 answering respondent No.1 has no role about processing and adjudication of insurance claim pertaining to present complaint.  However, it is submitted that as per operational guidelines of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and notification dt. 30.03.2018 issued by Govt. of Haryana bearing Memo No.941/agri.II(1)-2018/4332, present complainant being loanee farmers/KCC-Kissan Credit Card holders from OP No.1 for notified crops were required to be covered under this PMFBY Scheme compulsorily.  Present complainant was loanee farmer/consumer of respondent No.1 who has availed seasonal agriculture operation loans in the shape of KCC from opposite party by way of mortgaging their agriculture land with OP No.1 by way of registered mortgage.  Scheme of PMFBY has been implicated and premium account(s) were debited from respective KCC account of complainant.  On 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018-19 as such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 itself alongwith premium amount of other farmers and premium amount was credited in the account of respondent No.2 in their account and data of all the farmers was also uploaded by respondent No.1 at NCI (National Credit Insurance) Portal.  Since respondent No.2 had already received premium amount on behalf of present complainant itself alongwith the list of farmers/proposals/declarations pertaining to present complaint also, so respondent No.2 was under legal obligation to issue respective crop insurance policy in favour of complainant and to process & to adjudicate their claim as per operational Guidelines of PMFBY, Insurance Law, Law of contract and as per crop insurance policy.  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, complainant took insurance for rice crop but due to fainfall the loss of rabi crop has been affected in Patti Kaiseth Seth, Kaithal, District Kaithal due to the pcoedure best know to complainant that how he converted rice crop into rabi cropo and claim for compensation.  The reason for loss 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-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R4 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.             ­­­­In the present case, as per Annexure-R1, it is clear that PNB Main Branch, Ambala Road, Kaithal has credited a sum of Rs.8,47,959.21 paise as Fasal Bima Premium to current account of Oriental Insurance Company-respondent No.2.  Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company has stated that as per Annexure-R6, the amount of Rs.4,15,529/- has been refunded to respondent No.1-P.N.B., Main Branch, Kaithal but it is not clarified that as to whose bank account, this insurance amount has been refunded by respondent No.2-Oriental Insurance Company.  The Manager of P.N.B., Kaithal-respondent No.1 is directed to clarify the situation that in the bank account of Telu Ram-complainant in this case, how much insured amount has been refunded.  On this clarification, the complainant-Telu Ram shall deposit this amount to the Insurance Company-respondent No.2 within one month. 

9.             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.4259.32 paise per acre.  Hence, for 3 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.12,778/- (Rs.4259.32 paise x  3 acre).      

10.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.12,778/- 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.     

11.            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.:27.02.2023.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

                (Suman Rana),          

                Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.