Haryana

Karnal

CC/497/2019

Virender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Gourav Mandhan

19 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 497 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.06.08.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:19.05.2022

 

1.     Virender Kumar son of Shri Jai Singh.

2.     Saroj Bala daughter of Shri Jai Singh, residents of village Barota, Block Nissing, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

Punjab National Bank, Railway Road, through its Branch Manger, Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Sh. Gaurav Mandhan, counsel for the complainants.

                   Shri Anuj Gupta, counsel for the opposite party.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                 The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainants are having a KCC limit with the OP, vide account no.3951008800010490. The Central Government has launched a policy Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna for the agriculturist. The OP used to deduct the premium amount of the aforesaid policy from the KCC limit account of the complainants regularly. The OP has deducted a sum of Rs.1440/- from the aforesaid account of the complainants on 29.12.2016 and also deducted a sum of Rs.1706/- on 31.12.2018. In the year 2018 the complainants have sown the paddy 1509 crop in 8 acres of agriculture land and due to excess rainy water/flood, crop of the complainants has been damaged. During the survey the agriculture department has assessed the damages 68% per acres thus the complainants suffered a loss of Rs.34,500/- per acre and total loss of Rs.2,76,000/-. As per the scheme under PMFBY, the complainants applied for the amount of damages caused to the crop of the complainants, but official of agriculture department has refused to accept the claim of the complainants by saying that the insurance premium has not been paid by the complainants for the year 2017-2018. It is averred that the complainants have never raised any objections for deducting the premium of PMFBY. As per the scheme of the Central Government the OP is bound to deduct the premium amount from the account of complainants as the OP has already deducted the premium for the year 2016 and 2018 but OP knowingly, intentionally and deliberately has not deduct the premium for the year 2017. This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and due to such act of the OP, complainants have suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,76,000/-. The complainants visited the office of OP several times and requested to pay the said amount but OP always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to pay the said amount. Then complainants sent a legal notice dated 11.06.2019 through their counsel, but it also did not yield any result. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the scheme under PMFBY is applicable in case of KCC limits but when the farmers do not want to take benefit of the scheme, in that eventuality, the farmers has to submit the proposal/application form regarding their crop etc. and in the present case also the complainants do not want to take the benefit of the insurance scheme because the complainants have sown the crop of sugarcane in the fields in the year 2018. In this regard complainants has also submitted the proposal/application form on 27.06.2018 in which it has been clearly mentioned that the complainants have sown the sugarcane crops in his fields during the paddy season of year 2018 and it is pertinent to mention here that the PMFBY scheme is not applicable to the crop of sugarcane. Due to this reason the OP did not deduct the premium of paddy crop for the year 2018, only on the written request of the complainants. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant no.1 has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice dated 11.06.2019 Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of survey report Ex.C3, copy of account statement Ex.C4, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2013-2014 Ex.C5, copy of Girdawari Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 12.02.2020 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Dinesh Kumar Kalra Senior Manager Ex.OPW1/A, copy of application dated 27.06.2018 Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP on 14.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainants, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainants has obtained an agriculture loan from the OP, under scheme of KCC facility. The OP deducted the premium amount under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from the KCC limit account of the complainants regularly. The OP has deducted a sum of Rs.1440/- from the aforesaid account of the complainants on 29.12.2016 and also deducted a sum of Rs.1706/- on 31.12.2018. In the year 2018 the complainants have sown the paddy 1509 crop in 8 acres of agriculture land and due to excess rainy water/flood, crop of the complainants has been damaged. During the survey the agriculture department has assessed the damages 68% per acres thus the complainants suffered a loss of Rs.34,500/- per acre and total loss of Rs.2,76,000/-. As per the scheme under PMFBY, the complainants applied for the amount of damages caused to the crop of the complainants, but official of agriculture department has refused to accept the claim of the complainants by saying that the insurance premium has not been paid by the complainants for the year 2017-2018. He further argued that complainants have never raised any objections for deducting the premium of PMFBY and as per the scheme of the Central Government the OP is bound to deduct the premium amount from the account of complainants as the OP has already deducted the premium for the year 2016 and 2018 but OP knowingly, intentionally and deliberately has not deduct the premium for the year 2017. The complainant visited the office of OP several times and requested to pay the said amount but OP always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to pay the compensation. Hence prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that the scheme under PMFBY is applicable in case of KCC limits but when the farmers do not want to take benefit of the scheme, in that eventuality, the farmers has to submit the proposal/application form regarding their crop etc. and in the present case also the complainants do not want to take the benefit of the insurance scheme because the complainants had sown the crop of sugarcane in their fields in the year 2018. In this regard complainants have also submitted the proposal/application form on 27.06.2018 in which it has been clearly mentioned that the complainants had sown the sugarcane crops in their fields during the paddy season of year 2018 and PMFBY scheme is not applicable to the crop of sugarcane. Due to this reason the OP did not deduct the premium of paddy crop for the year 2018, only on the written request of the complainants. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complainant.

9.             Admittedly, the complainants are an agriculturist and having KCC limit with the OP.

10.           The OP has taken a plea that the crop of complainants kharif, 2018 has not been insured by the complainants because the complainants had sown the crop of sugarcane in their fields in the year 2018 and in this regard he moved an application dated 27.06.2018 with the OP. To prove its version, OP has placed on record copy of application dated 27.06.2018 Ex.OP1 moved by the complainants wherein crop detail has been mentioned in column of crop as “sugarcane”. It is also evident on the file from the account statement Ex.C4, that no premium for the crop of paddy for the year 2018 has been deducted by the OP, from the KCC account of the complainants. Complainants placed on file Khasra Girdawari of the land Ex.C6 wherein the crop has been sown as Jiri (paddy). But the complainants themselves moved an application Ex.OP1 in the bank to the effect that they have sown the sugarcane crop in their field, then they cannot take the benefit of the Khasra Girdawari.

11.           The premium amount has not been deducted by the OP on the request of the complainants, when the complainants themselves requested the OP not to deduct the premium amount in their accounts, and OP has not deducted the premium amount for the paddy crop of 2018 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, then complainants cannot take the benefit of the said scheme. The onus to prove their case, was relied upon the complainants but they miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence rather OP has proved its version by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we found no merits in the complaint and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:19.05.2022

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

      Member                       Member