Haryana

Kaithal

100/20

Bawa Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarva Haryana Grmin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.S.Pannu

16 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.100 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 27.02.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:16.06.2023.

 

1. Bawa Singh S/o Piara Singh aged 75 years, resident of Village Kheri Daban, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
2. Jaspal Singh S/o Bawa Singh aged 42 years, resident of Village Kheri Daban, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.  

                                                                        …Complainants.

                        Versus

1. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Agondh through its Branch Manager, Agondh, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No.103, Secretariat, Kaithal.

..OPs.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.           

       

Present:     Sh. J.S.Pannu, Advocate, for the complainants.   

                Sh. S.S.Vohra, Adv. for the OP No.1.

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for OP No.2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, Govt. Pleader for OP No.3.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Bawa Singh and Jaspal Singh-Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainants are agriculturists by profession and owned agriculture land having 67 Kanal 15 Marla situated at Village Kheri Daban, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainants have an account No.81418800024745 with the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 had insured the crop of complainants under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2018 with the OP No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.4982.19 paise in the name of ‘Crop Insurance’ from the account of complainants.  It is further alleged that in Kharif Season of 2018 the complainants had sown paddy crop upon these agriculture land but due to untimely heavy rainfall, the paddy crop of complainants was damaged/ruined due to “Rainwater lodging”.  The complainants reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural field of complainants and assessed 50% damage of paddy crop.  The complainants lodged the claim with the OP No.2 but the OP No.2 did not settle the claim of complainants.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.  Hence, this complaint.         

3.             Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written statement separately.  OP No.1 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainants have concealed the true facts from this Commission.  The true facts are that the crops of complainants were insured by the OP No.1 with the Op No.2 and premium amount was debited on 31.07.2018 from the account of complainants and the same was transferred in the account of OP No.2 within time.  The complainants reported their loss with regard to paddy crops of 2018 and the same was authenticated by the branch staff and the officials of Agriculture Department.  It is also relevant to mention here that relevant record was sent by the Op No.1 to the Op No.2 for consideration of claim of the complainants and OP No.2 released the claim amount of Rs.16,222/- to the complainants which was deposited in the saving bank account of the complainants on 12.04.2019.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the contents of complaint are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

4.             OP 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 Kheri Daban, Tehsil & District Kaithal due to the reason for loss mentioned as Heavy Rain Fall which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY), Scheme and no documentary proof of alleged loss has been annexed with the complaint to prove the same. It is stated that as per guidelines of scheme immediate intimation was to be given within 48 hours but complainants has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss of crop in Village Kheri Daban within stipulated period.  There is no deficiency in service on their part, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.  On merits, it is stated that in fact, in the present complaint, the complainants are claiming for paddy crop of Village Kheri Daban, Distt. Kaithal.  As per yield data of Village Kheri Daban provided by Government, actual yield is less than the threshold yield.  So, the complainants was entitled for yield loss i.e. Rs.16,222/- only as per terms and conditions of the scheme and the same was paid in the account of complainants through his banker i.e. OP No.1.  Moreover, under localized claim, as per record provided by Agriculture Department, final affected area on complainants land is Nil.    So, the complainants are also not entitled for the localized claim, if any and 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 complainants 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, learned counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainants.

7.           On the other hand, OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R3 & Annexure-R4 and OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R5 & Annexure-R6 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

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

9.             Ld. counsel for the complainants has argued that the complainants are agriculturists by profession and owned agriculture land having 67 Kanal 15 Marla situated at Village Kheri Daban, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.  It is further argued that the complainants have an account No.81418800024745 with the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 had insured the crop of complainants under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2018 with the OP No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.4982.19 paise in the name of ‘Crop Insurance’ from the account of complainants.  It is further argued that in Kharif Season of 2018 the complainants had sown paddy crop upon these agriculture land but due to untimely heavy rainfall, the paddy crop of complainants was damaged/ruined due to “Rainwater lodging”.  The complainants reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural field of complainants and assessed 50% damage of paddy crop.  The complainants lodged the claim with the OP No.2 but the OP No.2 did not settle the claim of complainants.  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.2-Insurance Company has argued that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Kheri Dabam, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Rain Water Logging” 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.  It is further argued 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 complainants himself or bank of complainants or other institutions that are part of this scheme.  It is further argued that as per yield data of Village Kheri Daban provided by Government, actual yield is less than the threshold yield.  So, the complainants was entitled for yield loss i.e. Rs.16,222/- only as per terms and conditions of the scheme and the same was paid in the account of complainants through his banker i.e. OP No.1.  Moreover, under localized claim, as per record provided by Agriculture Department, final affected area on complainants land is Nil.    So, the complainants are also not entitled for the localized claim, if any.

11.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has argued that the complainants reported their loss with regard to paddy crops of 2018 and the same was authenticated by the branch staff and the officials of Agriculture Department.  It is further argued that relevant record was sent by the Op No.1 to the Op No.2 for consideration of claim of the complainants and OP No.2 released the claim amount of Rs.16,222/- to the complainants which was deposited in the saving bank account of the complainants on 12.04.2019.    

12.            Sh. Pushpinder Saini, GP for the OP No.3-Agriculture Department has stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.  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.            The contention of complainants is that they had owned 8.5 acre land and premium of Rs.4982.19 paise was deducted by the bank from the account of complainants, so, they are entitled for loss occurred in 8.5 acres.  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 complainants was destroyed and they are demanding the claim amount, as per policy from it, then OP No.2 refused to pay the same on this flimsy ground, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. As such, the OP No.2 insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainants for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his crop.

15.            Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the OP No.2-insurance company has stated that the amount of Rs.16,222/- has already been given to the complainants on 12.04.2019.  The Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9979.20 per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 8.5 acre loss, the complainants are entitled for the amount of Rs.84,823/- (Rs.9979.20 paise x 8.5 acre).  It is clear that the amount of Rs.16,222/- has already been paid to the complainants.  Therefore, after deducting the amount of Rs.16,222/- from the total compensation amount of Rs.84,823/-, balance amount of Rs.68,601/- shall be paid by the OP No.2-insurance company to the complainants.   

16.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.68,601/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  The OP No.2-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainants.  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 respondent-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.:16.06.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.