Haryana

Kaithal

274/20

Balwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Suresh Malik

24 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.274 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 01.09.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:24.02.2023.

 

Balwan S/o Sh. Baru Ram, r/o Village Rohera, Tehsil Rajound, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Rajound, District Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department Kaithal, Office at Room No.305, Mini Secretariat, Kaithal.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

               

Present:     Sh. Suresh Malik, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Karan Kalra, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

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

                Sh. Balkar Singh, ASO Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Balwan-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 and possessed land measuring 51 Kanals 11 Marlas (6½ acre), detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.83958800000275 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the paddy crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2018-19 with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.3718/- on 27.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on  23/ 24 September, 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 only highest 60% damage of paddy crop of complainant but the actual crop damages loss were 90% and respondents assured to reimburse the loss within 1-2 months positively.  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.  Respondent No.1 filed the written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; to implement the scheme of PMFBY, premium amount was debited from respective KCC account of complainant for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif, 2018 amounting to Rs.3718/- and such premium amount was remitted to the respondent No.2/Implementing Agency in their account through electronic transfer itself 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 respondent No.1 bank) including that of present complainant were prepared/uploaded on PMFBY Portal within prescribed time/cut off date by respondent No.1 and such consolidated proposal/list of farmers/declaration were also submitted to respondent No.2 well within time.  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, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Rohera, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “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 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; 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 absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim.  Merely, allegation of claim intimation is not enough to establish that loss had actually occurred.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant has not provided or placed on record copy of insurance policy and in the absence of policy particulars like policy number, date of issuance and expiry and its insurance area, answering respondent cannot be held liable.  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 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 affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C15 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

8.             No intimation has been given by the complainant to the Agriculture Department regarding loss.  However, the premium of Rs.3718/- has been deposited by the complainant with the respondent No.1-bank as per statement of account (Annexure-C3).  Sh. Balkar Singh, ASO 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.8962.27 paise per acre.  Hence, for 6.22 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.55,745/- (Rs.8962.27 paise x  6.22 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.55,745/- 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.     

10.            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.:24.02.2023.

 

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

                                (Suman Rana),          

                                Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.