BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint no.304/2018.
Date of instt.28.9.2018.
Date of Decision:29.10.2019.
Richpal Singh aged 60 years son of Shri Kanha Ram, resident of village Khajuri Jatti, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
- Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Birdhana, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 156-159, Sector-9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager/Divisional Manager, Branch Office, Chandigarh.
..Respondents/OPs.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Argued by: Complainant in person.
Sh. M.R. Mehta, Advocate for OP no. 1.
Sh. U.K. Gera, Advocate for OP no. 2.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he had taken loan for an amount of Rs.3,68,000/- from the OP bank under the KCC scheme of the Government and on account of the same agriculture land measuring 8 Kanals of village Khajuri Jatti, District Fatehabad and agriculture land measuring 36 Kanals 2 Marlas of village Jhalnia, District Fatehabad was mortgaged with the OP bank. Since the complainant had taken loan under the KCC scheme as such his agricultural crop under loan was insured under the PMFBY.
2. It is further submitted that under the PMFBY an amount of Rs.3381/- was deducted by the OP bank on 29.7.2017 for insurance of Kharif 2017 and under the PMFBY. The complainant cultivates the Narma crop in the abovesaid insured land and when the crop was insured the Narma crop was standing in his fields and the complainant never cultivated paddy crop in the abovesaid land as the land is not fit for paddy cultivation.
3. It is further submitted that the insured Kharif crop of 2017 was damaged but the insurance claim has not been credited in the account of the complainant whereas all the neighbors have already received the compensation. In this regard, the complainant contacted the OPs and after examining the documents it was informed to the complainant that the compensation of the damaged crop will be credited in his account in a very short period. However, till date the compensation amount has not been credited in the account of the complainant despite many visits made by him.
4. It is further submitted hat on 25.6.2018 the OP no. 2 refunded the abovesaid amount of Rs.3381/- of premium of the complainant in the account of OP no. 1. It is further submitted that on account of the abovesaid act the complainant has suffered a total loss of Rs.91,000/- as compensation. The abovesaid act amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and as such the complainant is also entitled for receiving compensation. The complainant has further prayed that the Ops may be directed for making a payment of Rs.91,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 18% and an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Hence, the present complaint.
5. On being served, the OP no. 1 appeared through counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, cause of action and locus standi etc., have been raised.
6. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant did not submit his aadhar card in the OP bank in spite of repeated requests by the OP bank to the complainant. It is further submitted that a total amount of Rs.9,54,575/- of 344 farmers for insurance of the kharif crops 2017 was paid by the OP no. 1 to OP no. 2 including the amount of Rs.3381/- of the complainant. Thereafter, the answering OP intimated the insurance company regarding non submission of the aadhar card by the complainant through e-mail on 7.8.2017. However, the amount debited to the account of the complainant was paid to the respondent no. 2 and the insurance company accepted the premium and retained the same for 11 months which shows that the crop of the complainant was insured. It is further submitted that insurance is a contract and act of the acceptance of the premium without protest shows that by accepting the premium the complainant farmer stood insured. It is further submitted that the premium amount was retained by the insurance company for a period of 11 months and in the meanwhile the crops reportedly suffered damages. On 25.6.2018 the insurance company all of a sudden returned the entire premium amount of 124 farmers which was paid to it by the bank and retained by the insurance company for a period of 11 months. The act of retaining the premium amount of the complainant alongwith other farmers for about 11 months amounts to acceptance of premium. However, when it came to the notice of the insurance company that the crops have suffered damages and there is likelihood of paying claim for the same the insurance company abruptly without any communication credited the amount to the account of the bank for dishonestly avoiding its liability for paying insurance claim. The premium amount was retained by the insurance company for the entire period of Kharif crop till its harvesting and meanwhile the crops reportedly suffered damages. Therefore, the OP bank is not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint against OP no. 1 is liable to be dismissed.
7. OP no. 2 also resisted the complaint by filing a separate written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to cause of action, maintainability, territorial jurisdiction, abuse of process of law, mis-joinder of necessary parties and barred by limitation etc. have been raised.
8. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant had never paid any amount of premium to the OP no. 2 or got the cotton crop insured from the answering OP. No amount of premium was ever received by the answering OP from the complainant and he is not insured by the answering OP and as such the answering OP is not at all liable to indemnify the complainant. It is also submitted that the complainant never approached to the answering OP and moreover he is not consumer of the OP no. 2. It is also submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OP no. 2 in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint against OP no. 2 is liable to be dismissed.
9. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW-1/A, affidavit of Ram Sarup as Annexure CW-2/A and the documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP no. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jai Singh, Senior Executive as Annexure R-1 and the documents as Annexure R-2 to Annexure R-4. The learned counsel for the OP no. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sunil Kumar Branch Manager as Exhibit RW1/A and the documents as Exhibit R-1 to Exhibit R-5.
10. The complainant is his arguments submitted that he had obtained loan of Rs.3,68,000/- under the KCC scheme from OP No. 1 for his agriculture land measuring 8 Kanal situated in village Khajuri Jatti and land measuring 36 Kanals 2 Marlas situated in village Jhalnia District Fatehabad. In view of the above said KCC loan the cotton crop of the complainant for the Kharif 2017 was insured under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and an amount of Rs.3381/- was deducted by OP No.1 from the KCC account of the complainant and the same was credited in the account of OP No. 2. It is further contended by the complainant that the said insured cotton crop of the complainant was damaged due to adverse weather conditions. However, no insurance claim for the damaged crops has been given to the complainant by the Ops whereas all the other averments of the village whose insured crop was damaged have received the insurance claim. It is further contended by the complainant that the insurance company retaining the amount of premium for a period of about 11 months have credited the same in the KCC account of the complainant on 25.06.2018. It is further contended by the complainant that not disbursing the insurance claim to the complainant amounts to deficiency on the part of Ops in rendering service to him. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.91,000/- as insurance claim alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for insurance company vehemently rebutted the arguments advanced by the complainant and further contended that no amount of premium was received by the insurance company from the complainant for insurance of cotton crop. There is no privity of contract between complainant and insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnity the complainant as the crop of the complainant was never insured by the insurance company nor the complainant is consumer of the OP No. 2. It is also further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant has not produced any document or any other evidence to prove that the Kharif crop for the year 2017 was damaged. No inspection or survey report has been placed on record regarding the damage of crop of the complainant. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the complainant did not submit his Adhar Card which was mandatory for the insurance policy. Therefore, his name was not entered on the portal by the Bank. There is no deficiency on the part of insurance company in rendering service to the complainant. The learned counsel for the insurance company in support of his case has placed on record letter dated 24.07.2017 issued by the Government of India vide which the Government of India has made Aadhar number mandatory for all the loanee farmers for obtaining the insurance policy. The learned counsel also placed on record letter dated 12.07.2017 issued Department of Agriculture, Government of India vide which it has been mandatory for the Banks to enter all details on portal their Kharif 2017. In support of his case has also relied upon judgment dated 16.11.2018 rendered by this Forum in complaint case number 46 of 2018 titled as Balraj Singh Vs. Bajaj Allainz & Anr.
12. Learned counsel for OP No. 1 in his arguments contended that the complainant has not placed any documents/inspection report or any other evidence to prove that his Kharif crop for the year 2017 was damaged. The learned counsel for OP No. 1 further contended that an amount of Rs. 3381/- was deducted by OP No. 1 from the KCC account of the complainant for insurance of Kharif crop 2017. The said amount was deposited by the OP No. 1 with OP No. 2 on 07.08.2017. The said amount was accepted and retained by the OP No. 2 for a period of 11 months and after a lapse of 11 months, the said amount was refunded in the KCC account of the complainant on 25.06.2018. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the retaining of the insurance premium for a period of 11 months by OP No. 2 amounts to acceptance of the insurance premium. The learned counsel in support of the above said contention has placed on record Minutes of Meeting regarding PMFBY held on 02.07.2019 under the chairmanship of Director General Agriculture Department Haryana wherein it was interalia decided that in case where Banks has not entered the data on portal, but premium deposited to insurance company in time and premium not returned to Bank by insurance company in time, than insurance company have to pay the claim.
13. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record. The contention of the OP No. 2 that premium for insurance of the crop 2017 was never received by OP No. 2 from the complainant is not tenable. The OP No. 1 in Para no. 7 of the preliminary objections has specifically mentioned that the insurance premium amount to Rs.3381/- of the complainant for Kharif 2017 was paid to OP No. 2 on 31.07.2017. It is further submitted by the OP No. 1 that the above said amount of premium was retained by OP No. 2 for a period of 11 months and thereafter the same was returned on 25.06.2018. From the same it is well established that insurance premium of the complainant for the crop 2017 was paid by OP No. 1 to OP No. 2 and the same amounts to acceptance during the complete period of Kharif 2017 the insurance premium remained with the insurance company. Therefore, the company of the OP No. 2 submitted that no insurance claim was received by OP No. 2 from the complainant is wrong and incorrect. Moreover, in the meeting held on 02.07.2019, under the Chairmanship of Director General Agriculture Department Haryana, the case wherein Banks not entered the data on portal, but premium deposited to insurance company in time and premium not returned to Bank by the insurance company in time, then the insurance company will have to pay the insurance claim. Regarding damage in the Kharif crop 2017, the complainant has produced in evidence affidavit of his brother namely Ramsaroop S/o Kanha Ram (Annexure CW-2/A) in the affidavit, it has been submitted by deponent Ram Saroop that he has taken KCC loan on his agriculture land situated in Village Jhalnia and a premium of Rs.2827/- was deducted from his account on 31.07.2017 for insurance office Kharif crop 2017 under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It is further submitted in the affidavit that in the above said insured loan, he had cultivated cotton crop and the same was damaged and on account of the same has received insurance claim of Rs. 69,457/- on 14.06.2018. However an amount of insurance claim was credited in the account of the Richpal Singh for the damage of insured cotton crop for the year Kharif 2017.
14. In view of the above, the complainant has been able to prove that cotton crop for the year Kharif 2017 was damaged in village Jhalnia and compensation was granted by the insurance company for damage of the insured cotton crop.
15. In view of the above said discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OP No. 2 in the rendering service to the complainant, the present complaint is accordingly allowed. However keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case we deem it appropriate to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as insurance claim. The OP No. 2 is accordingly granted for making a payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. The OP No. 2 is further directed for making a payment of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as compensation and litigation charges. The present order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 8% per annum for the default period. A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum:
Dt.29.10.2019.
(Jasvinder Singh) (Raghbir Singh)
Member President DCDRF, Fatehabad.
