Haryana

StateCommission

A/28/2020

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHE - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVI DUTT - Opp.Party(s)

RAJEEV KUMAR GUPTA

24 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    28 of 2020

Date of Institution:  13.01.2020

Date of Decision:    24.01.2020

 

1.      Punjab National Bank, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar, Branch Hisar, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.      Chief Area Manager, Punjab National Bank, Dabra Chowk, Hisar.

 

 

Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Ravi Dutt Pandey son of Shri Rameshwar Dutt, age 56 years, resident of House No.C-35, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar.

 

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

 

                  

   

 

Present:     Shri Rajeev Kumar Gupta, counsel for the appellants.

                            

 

                            

O R D E R

 

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned for the reasons specified in the miscellaneous application.

2.      The Punjab National Bank, Branch Hisar, through its Branch Manager and the Chief Area Manager, Punjab National Bank, Dabra Chowk, Hisar-opposite parties No.1 and 2, respectively, are in appeal against the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar, whereby complaint filed by complainant Ravi Dutt Panday, was allowed and the opposite parties-appellants were directed to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant in lump sum as insurance claim and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses and further directed to comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of pronouncement of the order or else the amount would bear an interest @ 9% during the default period.

3.      According to the complainant, he was owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 82 kanals 15 marlas situated in Village Chautala, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa and had a bank account/Kisan Credit Card with the Punjab National Bank. The Government had floated a scheme, namely, Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) and under the said scheme the bank deducted an amount of Rs.4,140/- as premium on 31.7.2017 for Kharif Crop 2017, which was to be paid to the Insurance Company by the bank. The Kharif Crop of the complainant was totally damaged and, accordingly, he suffered a loss of about Rs.2,07,000/-. The complainant informed the bank in this regard as well as the Insurance Company. The bank had not obtained the insurance policy inspite of deduction of premium amount from the account of the complainant. The complainant visited the bank and submitted all the necessary documents and requested to pay the damages suffered by him but the bank put off the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant moved applications to opposite party No.2-Chief Area Manager on 4.4.2018 and again on 6.3.2019 but the bank did not pay any heed to his request, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the bank. The complainant had suffered physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss. The bank refunded the premium amount of Rs.4,140/- to the complainant on 31.3.2018, which proved that it had failed to obtain the insurance policy. Hence, the complaint, wherein, the complainant prayed that the bank be directed to pay Rs.2,07,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of lodging the claim till its realization on account of loss suffered by him and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.      Despite service, the opposite parties did not appear before the learned District Forum and as such they were proceeded against ex parte.

5.      The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit (Exhibit CW1/A) and documents (Exhibits C-1 to C-4).

6.      After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and on going through the record of the case, learned District Forum, allowed the complaint and passed the order in his favour, as mentioned above.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the complainant had not approached the learned District Forum with clean hands by suppressing true and material facts. He had willingly and intentionally not placed on record the khasra girdawari entries of his land for the relevant period, which could have proved the exact area of land under cultivation for the purpose of claiming insurance of his damaged cotton crop. The complainant had not filed any calculation regarding loss of crop suffered by him nor filed any details regarding amount of claim, which had been paid per acre and for which crop by any Insurance Company in Village Chautala, District Sirsa. The learned District Forum went wrong in granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant without any proof regarding loss of any crop. It is also submitted that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, accordingly, the services availed by him do not come under the ambit of the Act. Prayer has accordingly been made for accepting the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

8.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that the complainant had an account with the Punjab National Bank and also a Kissan Credit Card. Under the PMFBY, the bank had deducted an amount of Rs.4,140/- as premium on 31.7.2017 from his account for insuring Kharif Crop for the year, 2017, which amount was to be passed on to the Insurance Company by the bank, which was not done in the present case. The Kharif Crop of the complainant for the year 2017 became damaged and according to the complainant he had suffered a loss of Rs.2,07,000/-. He had intimated the matter to the Insurance Company from where he learnt that his Kharif Crop for the year 2017 was not insured as the premium had not been received. The complainant had moved applications dated 4.4.2018 and 6.3.2019 to the bank but no reply was received by the complainant. The amount of Rs.4,140/-, which was initially deducted from the account of the complainant on 31.7.2017 was finally refunded to him on 31.3.2018. As such, the bank had failed to obtain insurance coverage. This act of the bank amounted to deficiency in rendering services to the complainant. In this regard, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit (Exhibit CW1/A) and copy of jamabandi for the year 2011-12 (Exhibit   C1) to prove that he was owner in possession of 82 kanals of agricultural land in Village Chautala, which stood mortgaged with the bank. The complainant also placed on record his bank account statement (Exhibit C2) as per which an amount of Rs.4,140/- was deducted on 31.7.2017 from his bank account by the bank for insuring his crop. The said amount of Rs.4,140/- was credited in his bank account on 31.3.2018. The complainant had also placed on record copy of letters dated 4.4.2018 (Exhibit C3) and 6.3.2019 (Exhibit C4), whereby, he had lodged his complaint with the bank with regard to payment of his insurance claim. The letter dated 4.4.2018 was duly received by the bank. The complainant had also placed on record copy of the list of the villages wherein cotton crop claim during Kharif 2017 in District Sirsa was disbursed. Perusal of the same reveals the disbursement of cotton crop claim for the Kharif Crop 2017 in Village Chautala. The notice issued to the bank was duly served on 9.5.2019, however, the bank did not appear before the learned District Forum and were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 20.5.2019. As such, the averments made by the complainant in the present complaint had gone unrebutted and unchallenged. Thus, no case is made out for setting aside the impugned order, whereby, the complainant was granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants while filing the appeal be disbursed in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification subject to appeal/revision, if any, in accordance with law.

 

 

Announced 24.01.2020

(Ram Singh Chaudhary) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.