Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/251/2018

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Sharma

09 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

 

                                                                Complaint No.: 251 of 2018

                                                                   Date of Institution: 07.09.2018

                                                            Date of order: 09.03.2021.

 

Jarnail Singh son of Parkash Singh resident of village Ghotru, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

 

                                                                          ….. Complainant.

                                          Versus                   

 

1. State Bank of India, Branch Office Bhuna District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 4^th Floor, Red Fort Capital, Parasnath Tower, Bhai Vir Singh Marg Gole Market, New Delhi-110001 through its Divisional Manager.

….Opposite parties.

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

                                                                                                    

Before:                      Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                                   Smt.Sukhdeep Kaur, Member.

           

Present:                      Sh.Rajesh Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                                    Sh.Sanjeev Mehta, counsel for OP No.1.    

Sh.Vishnu Delu, counsel for the OP No.2.

 

ORDER:

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that against the mortgage of her share of land situated in village Ghotru Tehsil & District Fatehabad she had raised loan from OP nO.1 and had obtained Kisan Credit Card (KCC).  The insurance of the land/standing crops was done under PMFBY scheme and the amount of Rs.3284/- was debited to the loan account of the complainant on 10.01.2017 for insurance of rabi crops/wheat crops and same was credited to the account of the Op No.2.

2.                     It is further submitted that due to heavy storm the standing wheat crops of the complainant in the land measuring 3.94 hectares got damaged, therefore, the complainant intimated the same to Agriculture Department through  application having serial No.1140. The land of the complainant was inspected on 27.03.2017 by the officials of the Agriculture Department and the loss was assessed as Rs.25,000/- per hectare.  The complainant has suffered loss approximately to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- but the same has not been paid to the complainant by the ops despite repeated requests and visits. The complainant got served legal notice upon the Ops but to no effect. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, this complaint.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure CW1/A alongwith affidavits of Balwant Singh as Annexure CW2/A and Sandeep Singh son of Balwant Singh as Annexure CW3/A besides documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7.

2.                     OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, maintainability and suppression of material facts from this Commission etc. It has been further submitted that the answering Op is not the insurer rather the insurance was done by Op No.2 and answering Op has only debited the account of the complainant with a sum of Rs.3284/- on 10.01.2017 which was transferred in the account of Op No.2 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna as the complainant has raised bank loan under K.C.C.scheme. The Op No.1 is not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner for damage, if any, as it has not received any amount from the insurance company. Other contents of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                     Op No.2 in its reply has submitted that the premium of the insurance of crop was deducted after cutoff date i.e. 31^st January and due to this claim of the complainant regarding loss of wheat crop was rejected because as per terms and conditions of the Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna the premium of the crop insurance was to be deducted/debited on or before 31 July and 31 December for Kharif and Rabi of loanee farmers.  It has been further submitted that as per the complainant loss of crop has been effected in village Ghotru due to heavy storm but no date of rain fall or hailstorm or wind storm has been mentioned on the loss assessing report. The intimation was given on 10.03.2017 and the inspection was got done on 27.03.2017. The insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant herself or bank of complainant or other institution which is part of the scheme.  The complainant had to approach DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and the decision of the said department would be binding on all state Government/Insurance Company/Banks and farmers. The complainant has approached this Commission with bad intention by violating standard terms and conditions of the scheme.  The complainant has never approached to the answering Op and even not supplied any document related to loss of crop; therefore refusal of claim of the complainant does not arise.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. Other contentions have been contorverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit of Nishant Gera, Authorized Signatory of OP no.2 as Annexure R1, affidavit of Jaibir Singh Branch Manager/OP no.1 as Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

4.                     Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard besides perusing the documents carefully.          

5.                     It is proved fact on record that complainant is having his agriculture land in village Ghotru, Tehsil & District Fatehabad and is holding KCC account with op no.1. It is further proved on record that op no.1 had deducted a sum of Rs.3284/- on account of premium on 10.01.2017 from KCC account of complainant for insuring the wheat crop of rabi, 2017 season of the complainant in his agricultural land.

6.                     The grievance of the complainant is that her wheat crop for the rabi, 2017 season was damaged due to heavy storm but she has not received any insurance claim till today. The complainant in order to prove damage to her wheat crop has placed on record report of Block Agriculture Officer as Annexure C3 according to which loss of wheat crop in 3.94 hectare belonging to the complainant was occurred due to hail storm and further assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per hectare. 

7.                     It is the case of the op no.1 bank that op no.2 insurance company has accepted the premium for insuring the wheat crop of the complainant of the rabi, 2017. Whereas according to op no.2, as the premium was deducted from the KCC account of the complainant much later than cut off date, her crop was not insured and his account particulars for the purpose of insurance were not uploaded on the Portal of PMFBY by the Nodal Bank. From the copy of statement of account Ex.C1, it is proved on record that on 10.01.2017 an amount of Rs.3284/-was deducted by op no.1 from the joint KCC account of complainant for insuring the wheat crop of rabi 2017 and the amount was transferred in the account of Op No.2 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna.  The Op No.2 has not placed on record any document to show that the Op No.1 had transferred the premium amount from KCC account after the cut off date. The oral plea of the op no.2 in this regard is not supported by any documentary evidence. So it is proved on record that op no.2 has received premium of Rs.3284/-from KCC account of complainant through op no.1 on 10.01.2017 and has retained the said premium amount for a long time and has not refunded the same. If the premium amount was credited by op no.1 to op no.2 after cut off date for insurance of crop, then op no.2 should not have retained the premium and should have refunded the same to the account of the complainant but op no.2 has failed to do so meaning thereby that op no.2 accepted the premium without any objection and now when the damage to the crop of complainant has been caused, then op no.2 is arbitrarily and illegally denying to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. So, the opposite party no.2 is deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practice. The opposite party no.2 is only found liable to pay claim amount for the damage to the wheat crop of complainant for rabi, 2017 season and op no.1 is not found responsible in this regard.

8.                     Regarding quantification of loss, it is submitted that as per inspection report Annexure C-3, the total damaged area is 3.94 hectares and the loss per hectare is Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, the OP no.2 is directed to make a lump sum payment of Rs.99,000/- (Rs.Ninety Nine thousand only) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.  The OP no. 2 is also further directed for making a payment of Rs. 3,100/- (Rs.Three thousand one hundred only) as litigation charges to the complainant. The abovesaid order be complied with within a period of 45 days, otherwise the abovesaid amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum during the period of default.  No deficiency is found on the part of OP no. 1.  The present complaint is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                                Dated:09.03.2021

                                                            (Raghbir Singh)                                                                                                            President                                      (Sukheep Kaur)                                      Distt. Consumer Disputes

    Member                                        Redressal Commission, Fatehabad.