Haryana

Kaithal

393/19

Birbal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarva Haryana Grmin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Vikram Singh Mulatani

19 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.393 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 25.11.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:19.09.2022.

Birbal Singh age about 40 years, S/o Sh. Kesar Singh, resident of Village Bhatia Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal. 

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Punjab National Bank Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
2. Punjab National Bank, Regional Head Office, Karnal, SCO No.23-24, Sector-12 Urban Estate Karnal through its Regional Manager/Head. 
3. Reliance General Insurance Limited Company Branch Officer in Haryana at City Centre, Ist Floor, Opp. I.B. College near Karur Vyasya Bank, G.T.Road, Panipat (Haryana) through its Branch Manager/Incumbent Officer.
4. The Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
5. The Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department Krishi Bhawan, Sector-21, Panchkula.

….Respondents.

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.       

 

Present:     Sh. Vikram Singh Multani, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2.

                Sh. C.L.Uppal, Adv. for respondent No.3.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. for respondents No.4 & 5.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Gulzar 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 having the agriculture land within the revenue estate of Village Bhatia, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant is having his crop loan account bearing No.00525115005427 in O.B.C. Cheeka and the complainant got sanctioned crop loan from the respondents No.1 & 2 for the cultivation of land on the basis of fixed interest rate as per rules and regulations under KCC Scheme.  It is further alleged that the respondents No.1 & 2 got deducted the premium amount of Rs.1244.65 paise from the account of complainant.  It is further alleged that the respondents No.1 to 3 jointly dealing between each other for insurance of their customers Rabi and Kharif crops in every season under the valuable consideration, which was usually deducted/debited by the respondents No.1 & 2 from the bank account of complainant being insured agriculturist in December, 2016 respectively, who having common interest with respondents No.1 & 2.  It is further alleged that in the year 2017 the Rabi crops of complainant damaged due to local calamities and he approached the Ops No.1 to 3 for claim and fulfilled all the necessary formalities and submitted all the documents alongwith report of loss to the respondents No.1 to 3 after verified the same from the office of respondents No.4 & 5 but the respondents did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.  Hence, this complaint.    

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.   Respondents No.1 & 2 filed the joint reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; the scheme of “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” was introduced by Govt. of India and is being implemented by Govt. of Haryana, hence, Govt. of India and State of Haryana are necessary parties for just decision of the complaint; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the amount of premium in the sum of Rs.5,91,586.26 paise alongwith list of loanee farmers (Including the complainant) was paid to respondent No.3 on 31.12.2016 through RTGS vide UTR No.ORBC16366070262 for coverage of Rabi crops during the year 2016-17 and surprisingly now after expiry of statutory period of insurance and after a long gap of 1½ years, the respondent No.3 refunded the premium arbitrarily, hence deficiency if any is on the part of respondent No.3; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondents.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondent No.3 filed the reply raising preliminary objections that the crop of complainant was not insured under Rabi 2016-17 season for “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” in District Kaithal of Haryana State as per record of insurance company and present complaint lacks for privity of contract which does not fall under definition of consumer disputes in absence of any contract of insurance and consideration; that as per Operational Guidelines, the bank has to mandatory submit premium to the insurance company alongwith declaration form of the farmers but declaration form of farmer having details of insured unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area of insured of farmer etc. were never supplied by concerned bank and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for mistake done by bank or complainant himself.  It is settled proposition of law that contract of insurance cannot be booked unless details of insurance is submitted to insurance company.  Moreover, it was the duty of bank to submit requisite details of farmer alongwith premium for the purpose of booking of insurance contract in the record of insurance company; that the present complaint is not maintainable before this commission because the complainant has approached this commission with bad intention even without approaching to grievance cell of Govt. agencies as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Respondents No.4 & 5 filed their joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the officials of the answering respondents have inspected the spot and assessed the damages of crops of farmers on average yield basis which comes as average yield 3874.57 Kg. per hectare, whereas threshold yield is 4366.62 per hectare.  Hence, claim arises as Rs.6197.53 per hectare.  

5.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C1/A and documents Annexure-C2 to Annexure-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondents No.4 & 5 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondents No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Annexure-R1 and respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed the evidence vide their separate statements.

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

8.             No intimation has been given by the complainant to the Agriculture Department regarding loss.  However, the premium of Rs.1244.65 paise has been deposited by the complainant with the respondent No.1-bank.  The Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2509.12 paise per acre.  Hence, for 4 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.10,036.48 paise (Rs.2509.12 paise x 4 acre) i.e. to say Rs.10,036/-.      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.3-insurance company to pay Rs.10,036/- 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.3-insurance company to the complainant.     

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent No.3 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.:19.09.2022.

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.