Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/442/2018

Meva Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

H.S Garwal

01 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                      Complaint Case No.442 of 2018.                                                                Date of institution: 06.12.2018.                                                         Date of decision:01.05.2023.

Mewa Singh son of Chandagi Ram resident of village Banawali Tehisl & District Fatehabad .

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. State Bank of India, Branch Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited SCO, No.156 to 159 Second Floor, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ...Opposite parties.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Present:          Sh.H.S.Garhwal & Sh.Sushil Gupta, Advocates,for the complainant.                              Sh.Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                     Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for  Op No.2.                 

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  SH.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.    

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    The facts of present case are that the complainant has an account No.36025454439 with the OP No.1; that Op No.2 had insured the crop of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” and regarding this an amount of Rs.4942/- was deducted by Op No.1 from the account of complainant and was remitted to the Op No.2 being insurance premium; that the complainant had sown cotton crop on the land in question but the compensation on account of loss of insured cotton crop has not been given to him despite the fact that other farmers have already received the compensation;  that the Op No.1 has wrongly mentioned the name of village Banawali instead of Banmandori; that despite several requests the claim for damaged crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainant has suffered great financial losses. In the end, prayer has been made for allowing compensation for lost crops in sum of Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum. Rs.50,000/- have also been claimed towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.                           On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. In the reply filed on behalf of Op No.1, it has been averred, inter-alia, that this complaint is wrong against law; that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.4942/- was debited on 29.07.2017 on account of premium of insured kharif (cotton) crop, 2017 and was transferred in the account of Op No.2/insurance company; that the necessary miscellaneous correction with regard to the record was also sent to the insurance company for getting the needful done; that the premium of insurance was accepted and retained by the insurance company and is still lying with it, therefore, the insurance company being insurer is liable to indemnify the loss of crop, if any caused to farmer. 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 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of cotton crop has been affected in Village Banawali District Fatehabad, without giving any reason for damaging the same and regarding this no intimation was ever given to it; that as per record, provided by the bank, the crop of cotton standing on the land of the farmer situated at village Banmandauri was insured but as per the complainant the crop standing on land situated in village Banawali was insured, therefore, 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.  The complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of cotton 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.  Merely, allegation of claim intimation is not enough to establish that loss had actually occurred.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of reply OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikas Kumar Jangra Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 whereas learned counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Jai Singh, Senior Executive Legal Annexure R1 and documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure R6. Thereafter the evidence on behalf of the Ops was closed.

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

9.                          Undisputedly, the insurance premium for insuring the cotton crop of the complainant was debited by the Op No.1 and was remitted to Op No.2. However, the insurance company has come with the plea that the crop sown at village Banmandori, for which the claim has been sought by the complainant, was not insured because as per the record of the bank/Op no.1 the land of village Banawali was insured. The complainant has not placed any document on the case file showing that he had ever given any intimation to the Ops with regard to crop loss as per operational guidelines, therefore, in the absence of any intimation, survey of the land in question could not be got conducted, hence, the localized claim is not payable to  the complainant. On the other hand, the Op No.1/bank has submitted that report with regard to necessary miscellaneous correction was sent to the insurance company.  Perusal of the case file reveals that there is nothing on the record to show that the OP No.1/bank has ever sent any report with regard to correction in the name of village. There are sufficient materials available on the case file to show that the Op No.2/insurance company is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice and the Op No.1/bank is also found negligent in sending the wrong name of the village to the insurance company as is evident through Annexure R2. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.2/insurance company only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainant for Kharif 2017. There is nothing on the file to show that the complainant had ever intimated about the loss to the Ops within stipulated period as per the guidelines of the government with regard to loss of crop, therefore, localized claim has been rejected.

10.                        Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant has suffered loss of sown crop in 3.58 hectare and the concerned Agriculture Department has assessed the yield loss to the tune of Rs. 25977/- per hectare, therefore, it would be just and proper to give compensation to the complainant as assessed by the concerned agriculture department in its report.   

11.                        Thus as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted with cost. We direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.92997/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  In the present case, OP No.1-bank has given wrong name of the area in which land was under survey for the damage of crops.  The name of the area is actually Banwali while negligently, the officials of bank/OP No.1 have given wrong name of the area to be Banmandauri.  So, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank/OP No.1which shall be paid to the complainant.  The name of village be corrected in the record. 

12.                        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: 01.05.2023

                                                                                                        

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