Haryana

Kaithal

150/21

Tarsem - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Narender Ravesh

04 Aug 2023

ORDER

                     

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.150/2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 23.06.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:04.08.2023.

Tarsem S/o Dharma @ Dharampal S/o Ganpat, r/o Village Bhuna, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Bhuna Branch, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

….OPs.

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

..Performa OP.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Narender Ravesh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

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

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

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, GP for the OP No.3.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Tarsem-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and owned agriculture land measuring 24 Kanal (3 acre), as detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint, situated at Village Bhuna, Distt. Kaithal.  The complainant has an account No.81438800015949 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of Kharif (paddy) for the period 2018-19 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.1785/- on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in that area on 23/24.09.2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and the loss of paddy crops was assessed upto the extent of 50% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land.  After the survey, the complainant got the amount of Rs.10,849/- on 25.02.2019 for their damaged crops but the complainant was not satisfied with the amount paid by the OPs for the claim to the complainant.  The complainant requested the OPs to pay compensation for the crop loss but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  OP No.1 filed the written version 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 of Rs.1785/- was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.2, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

4.             OP No.2 filed the written version mentioning therein that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Bhuna, 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 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; that as per yield data of Village Bhuna provided by Government, actual yield (4385.84) is more than the threshold yield (3742.20).  So, the complainant was not entitled for yield loss as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  Moreover, under localized based claim, as per data provided by Agricultural Department-OP No.3, the complainant was entitled for claim amount of Rs.10,846.60 paise and the same was paid to OP No.1-banker of complainant, who had deposited the said amount in the account of complainant as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             OP 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 OP 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.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             On the other hand, the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R4 to Annexure-R11 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

9.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has an account No.81438800015949 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of Kharif (paddy) for the period 2018-19 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.1785/- on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in that area on 23/24.09.2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and the loss of paddy crops was assessed upto the extent of 50% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land but the actual loss was 90%.  After the survey, the complainant got the amount of Rs.10,849/- on 25.02.2019 for their damaged crops but the complainant was not satisfied with the amount paid by the OPs for the claim to the complainant.  The complainant requested the OPs to pay compensation for the crop loss but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has argued that the premium amount of Rs.1785/- was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.2, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any. 

11.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-Insurance Company has argued that as per yield data of Village Bhuna provided by Government, actual yield (4385.84) is more than the threshold yield (3742.20).  So, the complainant was not entitled for yield loss as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  It is further argued that under localized based claim, as per data provided by Agricultural Department-OP No.3, the complainant was entitled for claim amount of Rs.10,846.60 paise and the same was paid to OP No.1-banker of complainant, who had deposited the said amount in the account of complainant as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  .     

12.            Sh. Pushpinder Saini, GP for the OP No.3-Agriculture Department has stated that the claim does not arise on average yield because in the present case, average yield is greater than threshold yield.  He has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT at the time of arguments, which is Mark-A on the file.

13.            In the present case, as per pleadings of complainant, he has occurred loss in 3 acre.  So far the liability is concerned, if there was any discrepancy in the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) etc. of the farmers concerned, then it was required for the OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the said amount, within two months of cutoff date to the OP No.1 bank, but nothing has been done on the part of OP No.2 and this Commission rely upon in this regard on “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018” and its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii is relevant, which reads as under:-

“xxii) The Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the Insurance Company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim”.  

14.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was the required for OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmers concerned to OP No.1 bank after pointing out any discrepancy on its end, within the period of cut off date of two months, but in the case in hand, OP No.2 had neither raised any objection within the period of cutoff date of two months nor intimated to OP No.1 bank regarding any discrepancy in this regard and kept the premium amount with it, and now at the time when crops of complainant was destroyed and he is demanding the claim amount, as per policy from it, then OP No.2 has paid the amount of Rs.10,849/- to the complainant on 25.02.2019.  As such, the OP No.2 insurance company is liable to pay the balance claim amount to the complainant for the loss suffered by them due to destruction of their crop.

15.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3898.64/- per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 3 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.11,695/- (Rs.3898.64 paise x 3 acre).          

16.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.11,695/- after deducting the amount of Rs.10,849/- which the OP No.2-Insurance Company has already paid to the complainant through OP No.1-bank on 25.02.2019 as is clear from the statement of account as per Annexure-C2, which becomes the balance amount of Rs.847/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization to the complainant.  There is no order as to costs.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against OP No.2-insurance company and dismissed against OPs No.1 & 3.     

17.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP 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.:04.08.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.