Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/276/2019

Sadhu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sachin Goyal

05 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.276 of  2019.                                                             Date of Instt.:  25.07.2019.                                                                        Date of Decision: 05.09.2023.

1.Sadhu Ram son of Sheo Ji 2.Bhajan Lal son of Sadhu Ram residents of village Manawali, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainants.

                                     Versus     

1.State Bank of India, Branch G.T.Road, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.150-159, IInd Floor Sector  9-C, Madhya  Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                   Sh.Sachin Goyal, Advocate for complainants.                                           Sh.N.D.Mittal, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                         Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.2. 

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

 

ORDER

SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER

                              Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainants are owners in possession of land situated at village Manawali Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the detail of which is mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint; that the complainants had sown cotton crops/kharif crops on the land in question and  complainant No.1 is maintaining bank account No.65153350253 with Op No.1; that the complainants got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.2 and in this regard an amount of Rs.4290/- was debited from bank account of complainants 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, hailstorm and snow fall, the cotton crop of the complainants got damaged and complainants intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.25,000/- per acre; 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. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                                Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  In the reply filed on behalf of Op No.1, it has been averred, inter-alia, that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.717416.33/- of 175 farmers for insurance of kharif crops 2017 under PMFBY was  paid to the OP No.2 on 18.08.2017 through RTGS including the premium amount of the complainant; that the said payment was accepted and retained by the insurance company for about six months; that the insured crops reportedly suffered damages but on 14.02.2018 all of a sudden the premium amount of  insured crop was returned and created in BGL Account of the bank called Crop Insurance Claims received account without any reference or correspondence with the answering Op; that no immediate notice in writing was given after alleged damaged and even no details of damaged crop has been furnished. There is no deficiency in service on the part of bank. 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 its separate reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action and locus standi etc. It has been further averred that the present complaint before this Commission is not maintainable because  except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalized by government agencies and  the complainant should have approached DAC & FW Department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and decision of said department would have been binding on State Government/Insurance Company/Banks/farmers but instead of that the complainants had approached the District Consumer Commission (earlier Consumer Forum) with malafide intention by violating standard terms and conditions of the scheme. The amount of premium of Rs.479178.07 & Rs.238238.26 was received by the replying Op from the OP No.1 on 18.08.2017 after the cut-off date of 15.08.2017; therefore, the same amount was refunded to the bank. Further, the complainant had never given any intimation to the insurance company regarding any loss despite the fact that there is a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. It has been further averred that no proof of loss or weather report has been submitted with insurance company by the complainant and even quantification of loss cannot be determined in absence of necessary survey and there is no privity of contract between complainants and insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company.  Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.                       

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C3.

 5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Sh.Jai Singh, Sr.Executive Legal, Assistant Manager Legal as  Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure RW2/1 to Annexure RW2/3 and learned counsel for Op No.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Amit Pannu, Chief Manager as Ex.RW1/A. Documents Annexure R1/1 to Annexure R1/8 have also been placed on file. Thereafter, the evidence of the Ops was closed.

6.                          We have heard oral final arguments from both sides and perused the case file minutely.

7.                          The grievance of the complainant is that his cotton crop for the Khariff, 2017 season was damaged due to heavy rain fall, hailstorm and snow fall but they have not received any insurance claim till today. The complainant has placed on record copy of statement of account Annexure C1, from which it is proved on record that on 31.07.2017, an amount of Rs.4290/- was deducted from the account of the complainant by op no.1 as insurance premium for insuring the cotton crop of kharif 2017 with op no.2. 

8.                          OP No.1 in its written statement has mentioned that  Rs.717416.33/- of 175 farmers for insurance of kharif crops 2017 under PMFBY was  paid to the OP No.2 on 18.08.2017 through RTGS including the premium amount of the complainant but the insurance company after accepting the amount retained the same for more than six months on 14.02.2018 all of a sudden, the insurance company remitted back the amount to Op No.1 without any justification and reason despite knowing the fact that the insured crops got suffered loss and the insurance company will have to make the insurance claim. It is worthwhile to mention here that in Annexure R-1/2 i.e. list of farmers whose premium was sent to Bajaj Allianz the bank has mentioned  at Sr.No.67 that premium to the tune of Rs.4290/- was deducted on account of paddy related to complainant for 3 hectare of land. Moreover, in girdawaris Annexure C3 for the year 2017-2018, the fact regarding sowing of cotton crop in the each and every column of Khariff, 2017 (Sawani 2017) has been mentioned. Therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that due to negligency and fault on behalf of Op No.1/bank the cotton crop of the complainant could not be insured and on the portal data insured paddy crop has been mentioned. In the guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (Annexure R6) it has specifically mentioned at Sr. No.2 of clause XVII that In case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/ branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such-misreporting. In the present matter, due to mis-reporting of the bank/OP No.1 the crop of the complainant could be got insured, therefore, the Op No.1/ bank is found guilty as per Section 2 (11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Relevant Section is reproduced hereunder:

Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (“the Act”), deficiency is any sort of fault, imperfection, shortcoming or defect in the feature, quality, amount, nature, worth, authenticity, capacity and standard which is obligatory to be maintained and regulated as per the laws and statutes in function.

9.                          The complainant has alleged that his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 season was damaged and the concerned department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.25,000 per acre.  But the concerned Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.19304.55/- per hectare with regard to loss of cotton crop in village Manawali.

10.                        Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against OP no.1/bank with a direction to pay an amount of Rs.57913/- (in round figure) on account of loss suffered by the complainant for the damages of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017, sown by him 3 hectare alongwith simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the compliant till its realisation. Op No.1/bank is further directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rs.Eleven Thousand) towards compensation for harassment and mental agony etc. suffered by the complainant as well as for litigation expenses. The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the entire amount would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, no deficiency is found on the part of OP no. 2/insurance company, therefore, complaint against Op No. 2.insruance company 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. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 05.09.2023

 

                                                                                                        

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