Haryana

Kaithal

18/20

Vajir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.P Jaglan

20 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.18/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 14.01.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:20.01.2023.

Vajir Singh aged 72 years, son of Sh. Ganesha r/o Village Bhani Majra, Distt. Kaithal.

…Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Karnal Road, Kaithal through its Manager, Distt. Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company, Dhand Road, Kaithal, through its Manager.

….Respondents.

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

 

..Performa Respondent.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. J.P.Jaglan, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Vajir Singh-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 agriculture land situated at Village Bhani Majra, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.4072008800000410 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the paddy crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amounts of Rs.3803.56 paise on 31.07.2018 and Rs.2053.17 paise on 15.12.2018 respectively as insurance premium amount from the account of complainant.  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.  The complainant reported the matter to the respondent No.3 as-well-as respondents No.1 & 2 also and the officials of respondents No.3 in return inspected the agriculture fields of complainant and assessed 60% to 65% damage of paddy crop of 6 acres of complainant.  However, no claim even in respect of 6 acres of land which has been reported to be damaged has not been given till yet.  The complainant has suffered a loss of approximately Rs.40,000/- per acre of Kharif, 2018.  The complainant requested the Ops to pay the said 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 premium amount of Rs.3803.56 qua kharif 2018 crop was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018.  Lateron, consolidated premium of Rs.495436.42 paise, which also includes the aforesaid premium amount of Rs.3803.56 paise was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account No.0248002100026568 on 10.08.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Soft copy of consolidated detailed list of farmers/proposals/declarations pertaining to different villages (who were loanee farmer of PNB Karnal Road, Kaithal) including that of present complainant were prepared/uploaded on PMFBY Portal within prescribed time/cut off date by respondent No.1 and such consolidated proposals/list of farmers/declarations submitted to respondent No.2, hence deficiency if any is on the part of respondent No.2.  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 record, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Bhani Majra and Patti Kayasth Seth due to the reason 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.  However, it is made clear that the insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers.  If any mistake is done by bank of complainant or other institution, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim.  In the present complaint, the complainant is allegedly claiming for paddy crops which was allegedly insured through respondent-Bank.  In fact the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent as his banker had not uploaded the data of complainant on National Crop Insurance Portal of Govt. of India or supplied any proposal form to the answering respondent due to the reasons best know to them; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crops 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 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 affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R3 to Annexure-R10 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1655.36 paise per acre.  Hence, for 4 acre 2 kanal 2 marla loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.7056/- (Rs.6621/- for 4 acre + Rs.414/- for 2 kanal + Rs.21/- for 2 marla loss).        

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.7056/- 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.  In the present case, respondent No.1-bank has given wrong name of the area in which land was under survey for the damage of crops.  The name of the area is actually Bhaini majra while negligently, the officials of bank-respondent No.1 have given wrong name of the area to be Village Peoda.  So, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank-respondent No.1 which shall be paid to the complainant.  The name of village be corrected in the record. 

10.            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. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.01.2023.

 

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.