Haryana

Kaithal

129/20

Ram Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ramesh Singh Dhull

23 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.129 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 19.03.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:23.11.2022.

Ram Chander S/o Sh. Mewa age 50 years, resident of Village Harsola, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

The Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Harsola, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

The Oriental Insurance Company, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Divisional Manager.

….Respondents.

Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal, Office at Room No.305, Secretariat, Kaithal.

..Performa Respt.

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

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

                Sh. R.K.Nagpal, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

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

                Sh. Sunil Kumar, P.O. Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Ram Chander-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (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 owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 48 Kanal 16 Marla (6.16 acres) representing ¼ share out of total land measuring 195 Kanal 7 Marla, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.80938800017068 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2018-19 with the respondent No.2 and had deducted an amount of Rs.3219.30 as premium amount on 27.07.2018.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 23/24.09.2018 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 35% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land mentioned above, however, the loss of crop of complainant is more than 70%.  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.  Respondent No.1 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; estoppel; time-barred; that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable against the answering respondent as the answering respondent on the authorization of the complainant is paying the amount of premium of insurance to respondent No.2.  The answering respondent has nothing to do with the insurance claim.  The respondent No.2 is a separate entity and an independent agency.  The answering respondent has no role in adjudication of this sort of claim.  Thus, the answering respondent is neither a proper nor a necessary party for just decision of this complaint.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted 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 Harsola, Distt. Kaithal, due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy 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; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop; that apart from non-submission of claim, the complainant has also not supplied any proof for loss or whether index report of Metrological Department of India in support of claim which establishes that the alleged loss of crop had never occurred in the area.  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; 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 and survey report was prepared as per spot inspection.  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-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R4 to Annexure-R7 and thereafter, closed the evidence

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

8.             Sh. R.K.Nagpal, Adv. for the respondent No.1-bank has stated that the amount of Rs.12,569/- has already been given to the complainant on 28.06.2019 as per Annexure-R1-statement of account.  While the dealing hand Sh. Sunil Kumar appearing on behalf of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department, Kaithal-respondent No.3 has stated that for 2.5 acre land belonging to complainant, compensation of Rs.5417.28 paise has been given per acre to the complainant.  Hence, the total amount of Rs.13,543/- have to be given to the complainant.  It is clear that the amount of Rs.12,569/- has already been given to the complainant.  Therefore, after deducting the amount of Rs.12,569/- from the total compensation amount of Rs.13,543/-, balance amount of Rs.974/- shall be paid by the respondent No.2-insurance company to the complainant.   

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.974/- 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.:23.11.2022.

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.