Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/273/2018

Bhajan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

M.S Godara

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.273 of 2018.                                                            

  Date of Instt.:  19.09.2018.                                                                       

Date of Decision: 06.04.2023

Bhajan Lal son of Pohlu Ram (now since deceased) through his legal heirs and representatives A- Ram Chander B- Makhan Lal sons of Bhajan Lal son of Pohlu residents of village Chinder, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.State Bank of India, Near Red Light, Hisar Road, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabd through its Branch Manager.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.150-156, Sector  9-C, Madhya  Marg, Chandigarh through its Authorised signatory.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                   Sh.M.S.Godara, Advocate for complainant.                                              Sh.N.D.Mittal, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                         Sh. U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.2. 

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  SH.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                  

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is owner in possession of land situated at village Chinder Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the detail of which is mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint; that the complainant had sown cotton crops/kharif crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility with account No.65244206400; that the complainant got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.2 on 31.07.2017 and in this regard an amount of Rs.3539.70/- was debited from his account by Op No.1 as premium of the insurance in question, which was credited in the account of Op No.2; that due to heavy rain fail, hailstorm and snow fall, the cotton crop of the complainant got damaged and complainant intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.25,000/- per hectare; that despite serving of legal notice as well as many several requests and  the claim for damaged crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainant has suffered great financial losses. In the end, prayer has been made for allowing compensation for lost crops in sum of Rs.1,58,450/-. Rs.50,000/- and Rs.11000/- have also been claimed towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. Any other relief at the discretion of this Commission also sought.

2.                                Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  In the reply filed on behalf of Op No.1, it has been averred, inter-alia, that the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission and the complaint is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.717416.33/- of 175 farmers for insurance of kharif crops 2017 under PMFBY was  paid to the OP No.2 on 18.08.2017 through RTGS including the premium amount of the complainant; that the said payment was accepted and retained by the insurance company for about six months; that the insured crops reportedly suffered damages but all of a sudden the premium amount of  insured crop was returned and created in BGL Account of the bank called Crop Insurance Claims received account without any reference or correspondence with the answering Op; that no immediate notice in writing was given after alleged damaged and even no details of damaged crop has been furnished. There is no deficiency in service on the part of bank. Other contentions have also been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          Op No.2 filed its separate reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action and locus standi etc. It has been further averred that the present complaint before this Commission is not maintainable because  except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalised by government agencies and  the complainant should have approached DAC & FW Department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and decision of said department would have been binding on State Government/Insurance Company/Banks/farmers but instead of that the complainants had approached the District Consumer Commission (earlier Consumer Forum) with malafide intention by violating standard terms and conditions of the scheme. Further, the complainant had never given any intimation to the insurance company regarding any loss despite the fact that there is a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. It has been further averred that no proof of loss or weather report has been submitted with insurance company by the complainant and even quantification of loss cannot be determined in absence of necessary survey and there is no privity of contract between complainants and insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company.  Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.                             

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C12 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Sh.Sarpreet Kaur,  Asstt. Manager Legal as Annexure R1 and learned counsel for Op No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Balbir Singh, Chief Manager and Principal Officer as Annexure R9. Documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R8 to Annexure 11 have also been placed on file. Thereafter, the evidence of the Ops was closed.

6.                          We have heard oral final arguments from both sides and perused the case file minutely.

7.                          The grievance of the complainant is that his cotton crop for the Khariff, 2017 season was damaged due to heavy rain fall, hailstorm and snow fall but he has not received any insurance claim till today. The complainant in order to prove his case, has placed on file copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-13 as Annexure C10 and copies of khasra girdwaris for the year 2017-2018 Annexure C11 and Annexure C12. The complainant has also placed on record copy of statement of account Annexure C4, from which it is proved on record that on 31.07.2017, an amount of Rs.3539.70/- was deducted from his account by op no.1 as insurance premium for insuring the cotton crop of kharif 2017 with op no.2. 

8.                          OP No.1 in its written statement has mentioned that  Rs.717416.33/- of 175 farmers for insurance of kharif crops 2017 under PMFBY was  paid to the OP No.2 on 18.08.2017 through RTGS including the premium amount of the complainant but the insurance company after accepting the amount retained the same for more than six months but  all of a sudden, the insurance company remitted back the amount to Op No.1 without any justification and reason despite knowing the fact that the insured crops got suffered loss and the insurance company will have to make the insurance claim.

9.                          The complainant has alleged that his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 season was damaged and the concerned department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.25,000 per hectare.  But perusal of the case file reveals that the by concerned Agriculture Department on the report dated 13.05.2022 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.19688/- per acre with regard to loss of cotton crop in village Chinder.

10.                        Undisputedly, the insurance company had accepted the payment qua insurance premium of crop and kept the same with it for a longer period of more than six months  and further returned the same  when the insured crop had already been reportedly damaged, meaning thereby that op no.2 had accepted the premium without any objection and now when the damage to the crop of complainant has been caused, then op no.2 arbitrarily and illegally denying to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. So, the OP no.2 is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.2 only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainant for Kharif 2017 season and op no.1 is not found responsible in this regard.

11.                        Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant has suffered loss of sown crop in 2.565 hectare (6.33 acre) and the concerned Agriculture Department in the report dated 13.05.2022 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.19688/- per acre, therefore, it would be just and proper to give compensation to the complainant as assessed by the concerned agriculture department in its report dated13.05.2022.

12.                        Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against OP no.2 with a direction as follows:

(1)                        To pay an amount of Rs.1,24,625/- as insurance claim amount to the complainant for the damages of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017, sown by him in 2.565 hectare (6.33 acre).

(2)                        To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rs.Eleven Thousand) towards compensation for harassment and mental agony etc. suffered by the complainant as well as for litigation expenses.

                             The amount mentioned at Sr. No. (1) would carry simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.  The order be complied within a period of 30 days from today, failing which the entire amount mentioned at Sr. Nos. (1) & (2) above would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, no deficiency is found on the part of OP no. 2, therefore, complaint against Op No.1 stands dismissed.  However, the Op No.1 is directed to return the amount of insurance premium to the tune of Rs.3539.70/- received from the Op No.2, within a period of 30 days from today.

13.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents 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. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 06.04.2023

 

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                       (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                              Member                               Member                                             President