Haryana

Kaithal

286/20

Balbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Yaspal Singh

25 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.286 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 08.09.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:25.01.2023.

Balbir Singh son of Sh. Dala Ram, r/o Village Kheri Rai Wali, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Dhand, Distt. Kaithal.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Divisional Manager.

….Respondents.

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

..Performa Respt.

 

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Yashpal Singh, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Davinder Gorsi, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

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

                Sh. Sunil Kumar, PO Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Balbir Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (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 2 acre of agriculture land situated at Village Kheri Rai Wali, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.82178800006699 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant of Kharif (paddy) 2018 and Rabi 2019 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amounts of Rs.1189.67 paise and Rs.642.22 paise respectively as premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in the month of September, October, 2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant reported the matter to the respondent No.3 and the officials of respondents No.3 in return inspected the agriculture fields of complainant and assessed 40%-50% damage of paddy crop of 2 acres of land.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the respondents several times to pay compensation but the respondents did not redress the grievances of complainant.  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 was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Paddy/Kharif 2018-19 amounting to Rs.1189.67 paise  and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account through Electronic transfer/NEFT bearing UTR No.PUNBB-18222002979 on 10.08.2018 alongwith consolidated premium of Rs.846300.31 paise (which includes the premium of present complainant), 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 Kheri Rai Wali, District 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 in fact as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Agricultural Department (Haryana Govt.), the actual yield is more than the threshold yield (Actual yield in the present case is 3531.062808 whereas Threshold yield is 2553.3), moreover no intimation for localized claim was submitted by the complainant to respondent insurance company within time limit, hence, localized claim is not payable, thus, nothing is payable by the insurance company to the complainant; 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, 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 and evasively denied all the facts contained in the complaint.  On merits, it is stated that the answering respondent gave report regarding damage randomly and never assured the complainant to reimburse the claim and moreover, there is no liability to pay any compensation to the complainant on account of damage of crops.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

5.             To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R3 to Annexure-R10, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R11 to Annexure-R13 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

88.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6652.80 paise per acre.  Hence, for 2 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.13,306/- (Rs.6652.80 paise x  2 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.13,306/- 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.  It has been brought to our notice by Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company that the Agriculture Department has not intimated the Insurance Company regarding the loss of harvest rather it has been reported that no intimation has been received by Agriculture Department for localized claim.  Hence, cost of Rs.5500/- is levied on respondent No.3-Agriculture Department for their negligence.   

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents No.2 & 3 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.:25.01.2023.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.