Haryana

Kaithal

282/19

Baljinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarva Haryana Grmin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Karam Singh

22 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.282 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 27.08.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:22.09.2022.

Baljinder Singh aged 30 years S/o Sh. Amar Singh, resident of Village Papsar, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank B.O. Kangthali, Distt. Kaithal through its Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Co. Kaithal through its Manager.
3. Block Agriculture Officer, Cheeka (Kaithal) through S.D.O.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Karam Singh Dhull, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, 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

        Baljinder Singh-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 owned agriculture land situated at Village Papsar Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.80968800053386 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the paddy crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.5948.94 paise as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water, 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 50% to 60% damage of paddy crop in 8 acre insured land.  The complainant has suffered a loss of approximately Rs.2,00,000/-.  The complainant requested the respondents 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.  Respondents No.1 filed the reply 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 qua kharif 2018 crop was debited from KCC account of complainant on 30.07.2018 amounting to Rs.5948.94 paise and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account No.0248002100026568 of PNB on 01.08.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Letter regarding Remittance of consolidated premium amount of Rs.9,13,820.95 paise (which also includes the premium amount of Rs.5948.94 paise debited from account of present complainant) alongwith list of 383 farmers pertaining to different villages (who were loanee farmer of SHGB Kangthali) including that of present complainant prepared/uploaded on PMFBY Portal by respondent No.1 on 30.07.2018 and consolidated premium debited from KCC account of farmers including that of present complainant alongwith requisite details of farmers were sent to respondent No.2 on 01.08.2018 (i.e. before cut of date), hence deficiency if any is on the part of respondent No.2.  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 record, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Papsar, 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.  In fact, as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Agricultural Department (Haryana Govt.), the actual yield is more than the threshold yield, hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that till date no intimation has been received by answering respondent regarding loss of alleged crop.  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 and evasively denied all the facts contained in the complaint and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R8, Op No.2 tendered into evidence Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R9 to Annexure-R11 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             Sh. Sunil Kumar, P.O. Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and he has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village survey, under PMFBT, which is mentioned as under:-

Claim based on Localized Survey:

Intimation Received for Localized Claim          = Yes

Type of Survey                                           = Village Level

Loss percentage of paddy crop 

in survey report (Approx.)                            =55%

 

Cost of Cultivation                                       =Rs.46950/-per hect.

 

Cost of Cultivation                                       =Rs.19008/-per acre

 

Approx. Claim for 1 Acre                      =19008x55/100=Rs.10054.40

 

                In the present case, the complainant has suffered loss in 8 acre as per record.  So, as per above-mentioned crop claim based on Village survey submitted by Agriculture Department, Kaithal, Rs.10054.40 paise per acre is awarded to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.80,435/- (Rs.10054.40 paise x 8 acre).      

12.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.80,435/- 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.     

13.            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.:22.09.2022.

 

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.