Haryana

Kaithal

8/20

Jasvir - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sunil Dhull

09 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.08 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 07.01.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:09.02.2023.

Jasvir S/o Sh. Sahi Ram R/o Village Simla, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, State Bank of India Branch Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department, Kaithal Office at 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:     Ms. Sweety Birwal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

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

                Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Adv. for respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA, Reprt. for respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Jasvir-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 having agriculture land 33 Kanals 4 Marla, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.36241092195 with the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 had insured the crop for kharif (paddy) 2018 of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.2785.26  paise 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 upon the mortgaged land but on 24.09.2018 due to untimely and heavy rain fall and inundation in the area of Tehsil Kalyat, 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 written statement 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.1368909.18, which also includes the premium amount of Rs.2785.26 debited from the KCC account of present complainant, was remitted to the account of respondent No.2 in their account No.0248002100026568 on 30.07.2018 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.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Simla, District Kaithal, due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy 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; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in the absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the 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.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C14 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents  Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R9, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith document Annexure-R10 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. Sunil Kumar, PO Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and he has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8553.60 paise per acre.  Hence, for 3 acre 2 kanal 9 marla loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.28,280/- (Rs.25,661/- for 3 acre+Rs.2138/- for 2 kanal+Rs.481/- for 9 marla loss).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.28,280/- 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.:09.02.2023.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.