View 13673 Cases Against State Bank Of India
View 13673 Cases Against State Bank Of India
View 24808 Cases Against Bank Of India
Bhalle Ram filed a consumer case on 27 Sep 2022 against State Bank Of India in the Kaithal Consumer Court. The case no is 336/19 and the judgment uploaded on 28 Sep 2022.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.336 of 2019.
Date of institution: 09.10.2019.
Date of decision:27.09.2022.
Bhalle Ram son of Ran Singh, resident of Village Dubbal, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
..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. Harikesh Khatkar, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Dinesh Kwatra, Adv. for the respondent No.1.
Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for respondent No.2.
Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA, Reprt. for respondent No.3.
ORDER
DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT
Bhalle Ram-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 11¼ acres of land in Village Dubbal, Tehsil & District Kaithal. It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.65139916080 with the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 had insured the crop for kharif 2018 of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.6679.11 paise on 25.07.2018 in the name of ‘Crop Insurance’ from the account of complainant. It is further alleged that in the season of kharif 2018, the complainant planted the paddy crop but on 23/24.09.2018 respectively due to untimely and heavy rain fall and inundation, the insured ripen paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined. The complainant reported the matter to respondents 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. 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 there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent as the premium under the scheme of crop insurance was paid by the answering respondent to respondent No.2 i.e. Oriental Insurance Company on the instructions of Govt. of India/Haryana and it is the respondent No.2 only, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any. It is relevant to mention here that amount of premium in the sum of Rs.6679.11 paise was paid to respondent No.2 on 25.07.2018 through for coverage of paddy crops during the year 2018. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Respondent 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 paddy crop has been affected in Village Dubbal, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “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. In fact, the complainant had taken the insurance of paddy crop for 4.53 hectare of land through bank of complainant and as per yield data on NCI Portal provided by Govt./Agriculture Department, the actual yield is more than the threshold yield. So, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents i.e. Jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari etc. The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint
4. Respondent No.3 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that the survey was conducted at village level randomly and report was prepared at the spot. The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.PA alongwith documents Anneuxre-P1 to Annexure-P6 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of respondents.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for 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 Village survey, under PMFBT and as per this survey, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4561.92 paise per acre. In the present case, the complainant has suffered loss in 5 acre as per record. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.22,809.60 paise (Rs.4561.92 paise x 5 acre) i.e. to say Rs.22,810/-.
9. Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.22,810/- 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.:27.09.2022.
(Dr. Neelima Shangla)
President.
(Rajbir Singh), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.