Haryana

Kaithal

185/20

Chanderbhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Jai Parkash

24 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

                                                               Complaint Case No.   185/2020.

                                                               Date of institution:             01.07.2020.

                                                               Date of decision:       24.11.2023

 

Chanderbhan son of Shri Ran residents of village Baba Ladana Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Office at Village Baba Ladana, District Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
2. Reliance General Insurance Limited Company H Block, 1^st Fooor Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai-400710 its authorized person.
3. Reliance General Insurance Branch Office City Center, 1^st Floor, Opp. I.B. College, Near Karur Vyasya Bank, G.T. Road Panipat-132103, through its Branch manager.
4. UHBVN Sub Urban No. 1 Kaithal through its Xen.
5. The Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.

….Respondents.

CORAM:    SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Sh. Jai Parkash, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Sh. Amit Beniwal, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                    Sh. C.L.Uppal, Adv. for OP No.2 and 3.

                   Sh. J.P. Jaglan, Adv. for OP No. 4.

                   Sh. Sunil Kumar, PO, Rep. for OP No. 5.

                  

ORDER - NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant is having their agriculture land within the revenue estate of Village Baba Ladana Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal and he sown the wheat crop in 4 acre land in year 2016-2017 and purchased an insurance policy under the scheme of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from OPs No. 2 and 3 for his wheat crop through OP No. 1. On 11.04.2017 the said wheat crop of complainant alongwith others villagers has been burnt in electric short circuiting due to lose wires, due to negligence of depart of UHBVN. The complainant reported the matter to the respondent No.3 and the officials of respondents for compensation of the burnt wheat crop and there after special girdawari was conducted by concerned Revenue Authority and assessed the total loss of Rs. 1,18,047.  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 OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately. OP No. 1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law in the present form against the answering respondent, as the answering respondent has paid the insurance premium amount to Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and the Insurance Company i.e. OPs No. 2 and 3 have insured the crops under the Scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.                OPs No. 2 and 3 filed the reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as per guidelines of scheme given below:-

• Coverage of Crops

1.  Food Crops (Cereals, Millets and Pluses)
2. Oilseeds
3. Annual Commercial/Horticultural Crops.

• Coverage of Risks and Exclusions

Following stages of the crop and risks leading to crop are covered under the scheme.

1. Prevented Sowing/Planting Risk: Insured area is prevented from sowing/planting due to deficit rainfall or adverse seasonal conditions.
2.  Standing Crop: (Sowing to Harvesting): Comprehensive risk insurance is provided to cover yield losses due to non preventable risks, viz. Drought, Dry Spells, Flood, Inundation, Pests and Diseases, Landslides, Natural Fire and Lightening, Storm, Hailstorm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane and Tornado.
3. Post-Harvest: Losses: coverage is available only up to maximum period of two weeks from harvesting for those crops which are allowed to dry in cut and spread condition in the field after harvesting against specific perils of cyclone and cyclonic rains and unseasonal rains.
4.  Localized Calamities: Loss/damage resulting from occurrence of identified localized risks of hailstorm, landslide and inundation affecting isolated farms in the notified area.

3. (a)             General Exclusion: Losses arising out of war and nuclear risks, malicious damaged and other preventable risks shall be excluded.

In the above view, it is clarified that except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalized by government agencies on the basis of yield of crop and thereafter, claims were to be paid to bank of farmers. The insurance company is playing a role of implementing agency in the scheme in accordance with guidelines prescribed by government. Furthermore, in localized claims, three perils are covered under the scheme i.e. Hailstorm, Landslide and Inundation affecting isolated farms in the notified area. For localized claims, there was a condition for immediate intimation claim within 48 hours of loss. After intimation of claim, necessary survey of affected area had to be conducted by surveyor for decision of claim of farmers. Peril not covered as per local calamity: The reported damage/loss in the individual farm is caused by peril of electric Short Circuit. As per the Cl. SV 1 under Operational guidelines, the insurance cover at individual farm level to crop losses due to occurrence of localized calamity Vis. Landslide, Hailstorm, Inundation affecting part of a notified unit or plot is intended to be covered. As such it is observed that no insured peril has operated in the reported case. That as per guidelines of scheme immediate intimation was to be given within 48 hours but complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss of crop which reveals violation of terms and conditions of scheme.  The relevant part of reproduced as under for kind perusal of Hon’ble Court”-

Loss Assessment Procedure:-

Time and method of reporting the loss/claims.

1. Immediate intimation (within 48 hours) by the insured farmer to any one as detailed below.
2. Intimation must contain details of survey number wise insured crop and acreage affected.
3. Premium payment verification to be reported in next 48 hours by the farmer/bank
4. Mobile complaint may be used for reporting incidents of localized risks for intimation of events including longitude/latitude details and pictures using NRSC Mobile App.

4.                  OP No.4 filed his reply raising preliminary objections that as per official record of OP No. 4 on 11.04.2017 the electricity supply within the area of village Baba Ladana was closed from 7:05 hr to 18:45 Hr, for protection of wheat at fire, from the 132 KV S/s HVPN Padla and as per official record no intimation or complaint was ever received in the office of OP answering respondent qua the short circuit fire on 11.04.2017 within the area of village Baba Ladana. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                  Respondent No.5 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 fields of complainant as-well-as other farmers were inspected by the officials of answering respondent randomly on the basis of village level. The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

6.                  The complainant tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A and documents annexure C1 to annexure C16 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.                  On the other hand, the OP No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Annexure-R4, closed the evidence. OPs No. 2 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. RW2/A and closed the evidence. OP No. 4 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. RW4/A and documents annexure R1 to annexure R3 and closed the evidence. OP No. 5 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. RW5/A and closed the evidence.

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

9.                  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is permanent resident of village Baba Ladana Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal and having 4 acre of land in that village. He purchase an insurance policy under the scheme of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Youjna from OPs No. 2 and 3 for wheat crop through OP No. 1. He argue that OP No. 1 deducted the premium amount of the insurance of the wheat crop. He argue that on 11.04.2017 the said wheat crop of complainant alongwith others villagers has been burnt in electric short circuiting due to loose wires.  In this regard, matter was reported to police i.e. annexure C-15, DDR No. 7 dated 11.04.2017 and he has moved an application to the opposite parties and thereafter special girdawari was conducted by concerned Revenue Authority and assessed the total loss of Rs. 1,18,047 for above mentioned wheat crop. He visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but they failed to release the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In order to support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case laws titled VA Tech Wabag Ltd. Vs. Cholamandalam MS. General Insurance. Ltd, case No. 497/2014, decided on 12^th March, 2018 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi; M/s  A.I Champdany Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd and others, case No. 450/2013 decided on 23th October, 2019, decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and M/s Wimplast Ltd. Vs. M/s Oriental Insurance com. Ltd, case No. 195/2014 decided on 10^th December, 2019 decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

10.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 argued that the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law in the present form against the answering respondent, as the answering respondent has paid the insurance premium amount to Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and the Insurance Company i.e. OPs No. 2 and 3 have insured the crops under the Scheme of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Ld. Counsel for the OP No. 1 has placed upon the rules and regulations of Insurance policy under PMFBY as Mark-A.

11.                On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs No. 2 and 3 argue that complainant is not maintainable under the insurance policy i.e. Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY):- Coverage of Crops, Coverage of Risks and Exclusions, Prevented Sowing/Planting Risk, Standing crop, Post-Harvest Losses, Localized Calamities, loss assessment procedure: Time and method of  reporting the loss/claims. In view of the facts stated above, it is therefore prayed that present complaint to be dismissed with cost against the opposite party No.1.

12.                On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.4 argued that on 11.04.2017 the electricity supply within the area of village Baba Ladana was closed from 7:05 hr to 18:45 Hr, for protection of wheat at fire, from the 132 KV S/s HVPN Padla and as per official record no intimation or complaint was ever received in the office of OP answering respondent qua the short circuit fire on 11.04.2017 within the area of village Baba Ladana. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 4.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

13.                On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.5 argued  that the complainant says that his crop has been burnt by electric short circulating due to losse wires. But the crop burnt from fire is not covered under PMFBY: Localized Calamities: Loss/damage resulting from occurrence of identified localized risks of hailstorm, landslide, and inundation affecting isolated farms in the notified area. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 5. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

14.                In the complaint in hand, the complainant on 11.04.2017 his wheat crop of complainant along with other villagers has been burnt in electric short circuiting due to lose wires, due to negligence of department of UHBVN and he approached the Ops various times to pay the claim amount, but all in vain. Contrary to it, all the OPs have filed their detailed reply/written statement, denying the claim of the complainant. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the complicated issue is involved for the adjudication of the matter in dispute, which is not possible in the summary proceedings before this Commission, because to prove the same, the matter required detailed evidence and the Civil Court is the best platform for deciding the same. In this regard, we can rely on the case law titled “The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd & another Vs. R. Chandermohan, Civil Appeal No.7289 of 2009, DOD 27.03.2023”, decided by Double Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein, it is held in Para No.12 that “The proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Commission/Commission under the said act. The deficiency in services as well settled, has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortious acts. There could not be any presumption with regard to the willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in service, as contemplated in Section 2(1) (g) of the Act. The burden of proving the deficiency in service would always be upon the person alleging it”.

15.                So, keeping in view the ratio of the case laws, laid down by the superior Fora, in the aforesaid case as well as facts and circumstances of the present case, we dispose off the present complaint, with liberty to the complainant to file afresh complaint, in any appropriate Court of law, as per provisions of law, and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 69 of Limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost, as permissible under Rules. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:24.11.2023                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                         President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),             (Suman Rana),              

  Member.                                Member.