Haryana

Kaithal

421/20

Dharm Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Brishbhan

18 Jul 2023

ORDER

                         

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.421 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 27.11.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:18.07.2023.

Dharam Singh son of Sh. Amar Singh, resident of Village Geong, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

…Complainant.

                        Versus

1. State Bank of India Branch Geong, through its Branch Manager.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Regional Office Cabin No.7, third floor, Agro Mall, Sector-20 Panchkula, Haryana, through its Regional Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Kaithal, Office at Room No.103, Mini Secretariat, Kaithal.
   1.  

 

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

               

Present:     Sh. Brish Bhan, Adv. for the complainant.   

                Sh. R.K.Nagpal, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for the OP No.2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, Govt. Pleader for the OP No.3. 

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Dharam Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned 11 acre agriculture land situated at Village Geong, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.55076673594 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2019 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.4298.81 paise as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water, the wheat crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and the loss of wheat crops was assessed upto the extent of 26%-34% damage of wheat crops in insured agriculture land of complainant.  The complainant requested the OPs to pay the claim amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  OP No.1 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the premium amount of Rs.4298.81 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 10.12.2019 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.1, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

4.             OP No.2 filed the written version mentioning therein that the complainant farmer has not mentioned NCI-portal application number as-well-as farmer ID number in the complaint.  The same are required to ascertain their crop insurance coverage and for submitting reply accordingly.  As far as localized claims are concerned, it is specifically mentioned here that as per scheme, the localized perils/calamities viz. Hailstorm, Inundation, Cloud burst and Natural fire due to lightening affecting isolated farms in the notified area are available to farmers.  It is pertinent to mention that the intimation of crop loss due to hailstorm was submitted by the complainant farmer on 09.03.2020 and thereafter, surveyed accordingly and as there was loss of wheat crop due to inundation in the notified village Geong, thus eligible claim is already paid to the complainant farmer of Rs.6227.04 paise on 15.07.2020 as per the PMFBY Scheme.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering OP.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint 

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

6.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.           On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R7, OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R8 to Annexure-R18, OP No.3 tendered into evidence Ex.RW3/A and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

9.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned 11 acre agriculture land situated at Village Geong, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.55076673594 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2019 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.4298.81 paise as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water, the wheat crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and the loss of wheat crops was assessed upto the extent of 26%-34% damage of wheat crops in insured agriculture land of complainant.  The complainant requested the OPs to pay the claim amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that the premium amount of Rs.4298.81 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 10.12.2019 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.1, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any.  11.               Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-insurance company has argued that the intimation of crop loss due to hailstorm was submitted by the complainant farmer on 09.03.2020 and thereafter, surveyed accordingly and as there was loss of wheat crop due to inundation in the notified village Geong, thus eligible claim is already paid to the complainant farmer of Rs.6227.04 paise on 15.07.2020 as per the PMFBY Scheme.    

12.            Sh. Pushpinder Saini, GP for the OP No.3-Agriculture Department has stated that the claim does not arise on average yield because in the present case, average yield is greater than threshold yield.  He has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT at the time of arguments, which is Mark-A on the file.    

13.            The main contention of ld. counsel for the OP No.2-insurance company is that the data of complainant was uploaded on the portal as 0.80 hectare land which becomes 1.97 acre as per Annexure-R14, so, the complainant is entitled for the loss occurred in 1.97 acre.  It is further argued by ld. counsel for the OP No.2 is that 30% loss was assessed by the Agriculture Department in the village of complainant.  During the course of arguments, query was made to OP No.3 that how they have assessed 30% loss in the case of complainant and they have replied that they had inspected the land of 4 farmers in the same village i.e. Santosh, Krishan Lal, Sanjay Kumar and Ranjit Singh as per Annexure-C3 to Annexure-C6 and on the basis of inspection of these farmers, they have assessed loss as 30%.  In the survey of farmer namely Santosh as per Annexure-C3, inspected land is mentioned as 8 acre.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the said farmer Santosh is co-sharer in the land of complainant and the complainant has suffered loss in 11 acres of land, so, he is entitled for loss occurred in 11 acres.  So far the liability is concerned, if there was any discrepancy in the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) etc. of the farmers concerned, then it was required for the OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the said amount, within two months of cutoff date to the OP No.2 bank, but nothing has been done on the part of OP No.2 and this Commission rely upon in this regard on “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018” and its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii is relevant, which reads as under:-

“xxii) The Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the Insurance Company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim”.  

14.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was the required for OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmers concerned to OP No.1 bank after pointing out any discrepancy on its end, within the period of cut off date of two months, but in the case in hand, OP No.2 had neither raised any objection within the period of cutoff date of two months nor intimated to OP No.1 bank regarding any discrepancy in this regard and kept the premium amount with it, and now at the time when crops of complainant was destroyed and he is demanding the claim amount, as per policy from it, then OP No.2 refused to pay the same on this flimsy ground, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. As such, the OP No.2 insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his crop.

15.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3301.45 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 11 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.36,316/- (Rs.3301.45x11 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Insurance Company.         

16.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.36,316/- after deducting the amount of Rs.6227/- which the OP No.2 has already paid to the complainant which becomes Rs.30,089/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  The OP No.2-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against OP No.2-insurance company and dismissed against Ops No.1 & 3.     

17.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP 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.:18.07.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.