Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/314/2019

Hans Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhir Narang

20 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                      Complaint Case No.314 of 2019.                                                                Date of institution:09.08.2019.                                                          Date of decision: 20.11.2023.

Hans Raj son of Shanker Lal resident of village Khasa Mahajan Tehsil Adampur District Hisar.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Badopal Tehsil District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited SCO No.150-156, IInd Floor Sector 9, Chandgiarh through its Manager.

                                                                   ...Opposite parties.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act                       

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.

Present:          Sh.Sudhir Narang, Advocate, for the complainant.                                       Sh.Inder Singh Sihag, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                         Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.2.            

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                              In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is  owner of agriculture land, situated at Village Khara Kheri Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the details of which is mentioned in para No.1 in the compliant; that the complainant has also availed KCC facility bearing No.82218800004005 from OP No.1; that Op No.1 had insured the crop of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for khariff 2017 with the OP No.2 by deducting an amount of Rs.5375/- on 31.07.2017 in the name of ‘Crop Insurance’ from the account of complainant; that the complainant had sown cotton crop on the land in question but it got damaged due to heavy rain fall hailstorm and snow fall; that the complainant intimated the Ops as well as the concerned department for the alleged loss; that despite several requests, the claim for damaged crops has not been paid by the Ops due to which the complainant has suffered financial loss. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this compliant.  

2.                          On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, maintainability and suppression of material facts etc. It has been further submitted that the insurance premium amount of Rs.5375.24/- for cotton crop was debited from the account of the complainant on 31.07.2017 and was remitted to the insurance company; that the cotton crop was insured with Op No.2, therefore, the insurance company being insurer is liable to indemnify the loss of crop, if any caused to farmer. Other contentions have also been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.     

3.                          OP No.2 in its reply has raised preliminary objections that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of cotton crop has been affected in Village Khara Kheri Tehsil & District Fatehabad but regarding this no intimation was ever given to it; that as per record, provided by the bank, the crop of cotton standing on the land of the farmer situated at village Khasa Pathana was insured but as per the complainant the crop standing on land situated in village Khara Kheri was insured, therefore, 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.  The complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of cotton 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. Since the shortfall of yield yield of 1.70 % in the above said notified area, therefore, the complainant paid Rs.4572/- vide UTR No.134180541065568  dated 14.05.2018. 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 reply OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW1/B alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C10 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Saurav Khullar, Senior Executive Legal Ex.R/A  alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure R5, whereas OP No.1/bank has tendered affidavit of Sh.Daljit Singh, Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure RW1/1 to Annexure RW1/7. Thereafter the evidence on behalf of the Ops was closed.

6.                          We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                         Undisputedly, the insurance premium for insuring the cotton crop of the complainant was debited by the Op No.1 and was remitted to Op No.2. However, the insurance company has come with the plea that the crop sown at village Khara Kheri, for which the claim has been sought by the complainant, was not insured because as per the record of the bank/Op no.1 the land of village Khasa Pathana was insured. The complainant has not placed any document on the case file showing that he had ever given any intimation to the Ops with regard to crop loss as per operational guidelines, therefore, in the absence of any intimation, survey of the land in question could not be got conducted, hence, the localized claim is not payable to  the complainant. There are sufficient material available on the case file to show that the Op No.2/insurance company is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice and the Op No.1/bank is also found negligent in sending the wrong name of the village to the insurance company as is evident through Annexure R2 & R3 (Proposal/ Declaration Form and policy). In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.2 (insurance company) only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainant for Kharif 2017.  Perusal of the case file reveals that the Op No.2/insurance company has wrongly paid the amount of Rs.4572/- to the complainant on the account of yield loss in village Khasa Pathana whereas all the revenue records placed on the case file that the land of the complainant falls in village Khara Kheri.

8.                          The Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.42717.41/- per hectare with regard to loss of cotton crop in village Khara Kheri where the land of complainant falls and as per record the complainant has suffered a loss in the land 3.895 hectare (Annexure R1). The amount already paid to the tune of Rs.4572/- is hereby deducted from the awarded amount which comes to Rs.166384 – Rs.4572 = Rs.161812/-.

9.                          Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.161812/- (in round figure) 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 costs.  In the present case, respondent No.1-bank has given wrong name of the area in which land was under survey for the damage of crops.  The name of the area is actually Khara Kheri while negligently; the officials of bank/OP No.1 have given wrong name of the area to be Khasa Pathana.  So, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank/OP No.1 which shall be paid to the complainant.  The name of village be corrected in the record.           

10.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents 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 Commission.                                                                 Dated: 20.11.2023

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                         (Harisha Mehta)                      (Rajbir Singh)                              Member                                  Member                                         President