Haryana

Kaithal

420/19

Harchet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Serva Haryana Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Charan Singh

29 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.420 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 06.12.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:29.09.2022.

Harchet Singh son of Sh. Ishar Singh son of Sh. Baru r/o Village Baupur, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Village Arnauli, District Kaithal.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Kaithal, Room No.103, Mini Secretariat, Kaithal.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Charan Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the respondent No.1.  

                Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

       Harchit 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 agriculturist by profession and owned agricultural land situated at Village Balbera, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant had insured his crop under PMFBY (Pradhan Mantri Bima Yojna) for the year 2018-19 with the respondent No.1 and had also paid Rs.1485.19 paise for the same through his account No.81448800012145 with the respondent No.1.  It is further alleged that in the Rabi Season of 2018, the complainant had sown wheat crop upon the agriculture land and expected bumper crop.  But due to heavy rainfall in that area, the wheat crop of the complainant got damaged/ruined due to “Rainwater lodging”.  It is further alleged that the complainant and other farmers of the village reported the matter to the respondent No.3, who in return deputed a surveyor, who inspected the village land and assessed 40% to 45% damage of crops.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the respondents to make payment of compensation due to loss to the wheat crops but inspite of repeated requests, the respondents have failed to make the compensation to him.  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.  Respondent 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 amount of premium in the sum of Rs.640876.67 paise (which also includes the premium amount of Rs.1485.19 paise debited on 14.12.2018 from the KCC account of present complainant), was remitted to the account of respondent No.2 through NEFT bearing UTR No.PUNBB18355001291 on 21.12.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also, 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.             Respondents 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 crop has been affected in Village Baupur, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Rainwater Lodging” 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, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent as his banker had not uploaded the data of complainant on National Crop Insurance Portal of Govt. of India or supplied any proposal form to the answering respondent due to the reason best known to them.  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.

4.             Respondent No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi.  On merits, it is stated that the during survey, inspection team of the answering respondent found that due to rainy water, the crop of complainant has become pale/yellow.  The total loss of the complainant was assessed 40-45%.   The other contents of complaint are rebutted 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-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R8, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R9 & Annexure-R10, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

8.             ­­­­Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and he has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Localized Survey, under PMFBT.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2810.68 paise per acre.  Hence, for 4½ acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.12,648/- (Rs.2810.68 paise x 4½ acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.12,648/- 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.      

10.            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.:29.09.2022.  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.