Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/32/2020

Pushkar and Ajay - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Rajbir Singh

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                      Complaint Case No.32 of 2020.                                                        Date of institution:29.01.2020.                                                          Date of decision: 12.04.2023.

1.Pushkar 2 Ajay sons of Atma Ram residents of village Dhand Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                        …Complainants.

                                      Versus

1. State Bank of Patiala now State Bank of India, Branch Office, Bhattu Kalan Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited SCO, No.150 to 156 Sector-9C Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Area Manager-Agri Business.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Fatehabad

                                                                   ...Opposite parties.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Present:          Sh.Rajbir Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.                                                              Sh.Sandeep Bhatia, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                    Sh. U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.2.                                                                     Sh.Sanjay, AR on behalf of Op No.3.                    

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

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainants are  owners of agriculture land, situated at Village Bighar Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the details of which is mentioned in para No.1 in the compliant; that the complainant No.2 has an account No.65257581908 with the OP No.1; that Op No.1 had insured the crop of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2017-2018 with the OP No.2 by deducting an amount of Rs.1130.22/-  in the name of ‘Crop Insurance’ from the account of complainant No.1; that the complainants had sown cotton crop on the land in question but it got damaged, therefore, the complainants intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.20,000/- per hectare; that despite several requests the claim for damaged crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainants have suffered great financial losses. In the end, prayer has been made for allowing compensation for lost crops in sum of Rs.80,000/-. Rs.25,000/- has also been claimed towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. Any other relief at the discretion of this Commission also sought.

2.                           On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as non-joinder of necessary parties, cause of action, locus standi, maintainability, suppression of material facts and estoppal etc. It has been further submitted that the insurance premium amount of cotton crop was debited from the account of the complainant and was remitted to the insurance company through RTGS and the amount was accepted by the insurance company without protest and objections, 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 in its reply has raise preliminary objections that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of cotton crop has been affected in Village Bigher Tehisl & District Fatehabad but 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 Dhand was insured but as per the complainant the crop standing on land situated in village Bigher 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.                     

4.                          Op No.3 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable and he has no cause of action to file the present complaint.  It has been further submitted that the complainant has never given any application for the inspection of his field and even the insurance of the crop has also not been done with the answering OP. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavits of complainants Annexure C1 and Annexure C2, alongwith documents Anneuxre-C3 to Annexure-C7 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 Sh.Saurav Khullar, Senior Legal Officer Annexure R1 and documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure R6, whereas OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Baljeet Ram, Branch Manager as Ex.RW1/A, and document Ex.R1  and Op No.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Sihag, Deputy Director Annexure R1 alongwith documents Annexure R2 and Annexure R3. Thereafter the evidence on behalf of the Ops was closed.

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

8.                          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 Bigher, 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 Dhand 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 material 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 (claim summary). 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.

9.                          Perusal of the case file reveals that the Op No.3/Agriculture Department has placed on record yield loss report wherein loss to the tune of Rs.14585.43/- per acre has been shown qua the village Bigher where the land of complainants falls and as per record the complainants have suffered a loss in the land 0.819 hectare (2.02293 acre)   

10.                        Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.29506/- (in round figure) 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.  In the present case, respondent 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 Bigher while negligently, the officials of bank/OP No.1 have given wrong name of the area to be Dhand.  So, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank/OP No.1 which shall be paid to the complainant.  The name of village be corrected in the record. The complaint against Op No.3 stands dismissed.           

11.                        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: 12.04.2023

                                                                                                        

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