Haryana

Kaithal

93/20

Jaswant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarva Haryana Grmin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.S.Pannu

28 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.93 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 24.02.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:28.02.2023.

Jaswant Singh S/o Hazoor Singh aged 52 years, resident of Village Kheri Daban, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        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.

..Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.              

       

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

                Respondent No.1 exparte.

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

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Reprt. for respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Jaswant 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 having 17 Kanal 4 Marla situated at Village Kheri Daban, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.81418800004290 with the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 had insured the crop of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2018 with the respondent No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.1264.20 paise in the name of ‘Crop Insurance’ from the account of complainant.  It is further alleged that in Kharif Season of 2018 the complainant had sown paddy crop upon these agriculture land but due to untimely heavy rainfall, the paddy crop of complainant was damaged/ruined due to “Rainwater lodging”.  The complainant reported the matter to respondent No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural field of complainant and assessed 50% damage of paddy crop.  The complainant lodged the claim with the respondent No.2 but the respondent No.2 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 respondent No.2 appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing written version, whereas respondent No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 19.01.2021.  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 Kheridaban, District 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 the absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim.  In the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for paddy crop of Village Kheridaban, District Kaithal.  As per yield data of Village Kheridaban provided by Govt., actual yield is less than the threshold yield.  So, the complainant was entitled for yield loss amounting to Rs.4116/- and the same was paid/deposited in the account of complainant as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  Now, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.  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.

3.             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 complainants as-well-as other farmers were inspected by the officials of answering respondent randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

4.             To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R7 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of respondents.

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

7.             Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the respondent No.2-insurance company has stated that the amount of Rs.4116/- has already been given to the complainant.  The Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9979.20 per acre.  Hence, for 2 acre 1 kanal 4 marla loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.21,454/- (Rs.19,958/- for 2 acre+Rs.1247/- for 1 kanal+Rs.249/- for 4 marla loss).   It is clear that the amount of Rs.4116/- has already been given to the complainant.  Therefore, after deducting the amount of Rs.4116/- from the total compensation amount of Rs.21,454/-, balance amount of Rs.17,338/- shall be paid by the respondent No.2-insurance company to the complainant.   

8.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.17,338/- 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.        

9.             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.:28.02.2023.

 

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

       

                        (Suman Rana),          

                        Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.