Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/64/2020

Kitab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

B.S Dangra

04 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                      Complaint Case No.64 of 2020.                                                        Date of institution: 27.02.2020.                                                         Date of decision:          04.01.2024.      

Kitab Singh son of Gian Singh resident of village Sanchla Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                               Versus

1. State Bank of India, Branch Sanchla Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard Plot No./149, 4^th Floor, Industrial Area Phase – I, Next to Hometel Hotel, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager/authorized person.

                                                                   ...Opposite parties.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Present:          Sh. B.S.Dangra, Advocate, for the complainant.                                 Sh.Sita Ram Beniwal, Advocate for Op No.1.                                       Sh.Rajesh Arora, 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 Sanchla Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad, the detail of which is mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint; that the complainant had sown wheat crop on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility with account No.65257810623; that the complainant got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.2 on 09.01.2017 and in this regard an amount of Rs.2591.33/- 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 and hailstorm, the wheat crop of the complainant got damaged and complainant intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.35,000/- per hectare; that as per 3.11 hectare, the compensation comes to Rs.1,08,850/- being crop loss but the insurance company has only paid Rs.11189.33/- and withhold Rs.97660.67/-; that despite several requests the remaining amount in question has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainant has suffered great financial losses. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                           On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 filed the written version raising preliminary objections such as complaint is wrong, against law and facts, cause of action, concealment of material facts and locus standi etc.; that premium of Rs.2591.33/- for insurance of crop of the complainant was debited on 09.01.2017 and sent to Op No.2; that the complainant has disclosed about sowing of wheat crop; that the complainant had not given any intimation about the crop loss as per operational guidelines; that the replying Op had received a sum of Rs.11,189/- from Op No.2 and the same was credited in the account of the complainant on 21.11.2018; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of replying Op, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable against it. 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 in its reply has submitted that the role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with scheme of PMFSY, therefore, it cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of the complainant; that in the present complaint the complainant is claiming cotton crop of village Khasa Phatana but the said loss is not covered under the reason inundation and hailstorm; that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as it has been filed with bad intention; that the complainant has never given any intimation  to the insurance company for loss of crop and even there is neither any survey report nor there is any proof of loss or weather report;  that there is no cause of action and no privity of contract for filing this complaint against Op No.2; that there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of Op No.2 in this matter. In the end, prayer for the 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-CW1/B to Annexure-CW1/F and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Parveen, Manager, Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 whereas OP No.2 did not produce any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of OP No.2 was closed vide commission order dt.09.02.2022.

6.                          We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                          The grievance of the complainant is that, as per the assessment made by the agriculture department, he has suffered loss upto 70 % on account of crop damage in 3.11 hectare of land (Annexure CW1/C) but the OP No.2/insurance company has only paid Rs.11189.33/- on account of compensation for crop loss, as is evident through Annexure CW1/D and withhold the remaining amount of Rs.97660.67/- for the best reason known to it. 

8.                          After going through the material available on the case file, it is ample clear that there is nothing on the file to show that as to how the OP No.2/Insurance Company has calculated/assessed the crop loss of the complainant and further paid the part payment of                    Rs.11189.33/- to him. Another strange factor which this Commission has noticed that the fact regarding making less payment to the complainant on account of crop loss has also not been mentioned in the written statement filed on behalf of OP/insurance Company. The act and conduct of insurance company in making the less claim to the complainant, which has also been proved to be genuine, is unwarranted, unreasonable, not only bad in law but also ethically indefensible resulting into financial loss to the complainant besides mental agony and harassment. So, we are of the considered opinion that OP No.2/insurance company only is deficient in service and also found indulged in unfair trade practice as defined under Consumer Protection Act.

9.                              In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against OP No.2/insurance company only and the same is accordingly allowed. OP No.2/insurance company is directed to pay sum of Rs.97660.67/- being balance amount (as amount of Rs.11189.33/- out of the total amount i.e. Rs.1,08,850/- has already been paid to the complainant on 21.11.2018) to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of making the part payment i.e. 21.11.2018 till the date actual payment to the complainant.  The Op No.2 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. The complaint against Op No.1/bank stands dismissed.           

10.                        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. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

     

Announced in open Commission.                                                           Dated: 04.01.2024                                                                                         

 

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