Haryana

Karnal

CC/218/2020

Vidya Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Parteek Lathwal

16 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 218 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.25.06.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:16.12.2022

 

Vidya Devi wife of Shri Baldev Singh son of Shri Munshi Ram, resident of House no.523, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     State Bank of India, Old Grain Market, Novelty Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Dhand Road, near I.D.B.I. Bank, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Parteek Lathwal, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Vikas Bakshi, counsel for the OP no.1.

                   Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant  is an agriculturist by profession and owner of land measuring 26K-14M situated in village Sangroli, Tehsil Dhand, District Karnal. Complainant is the Kisan Credit Card holder of the OP no.1, vide account no.36934818940. The land of the complainant is mortgaged with the OP no.1. The complainant has also taken insurance policy under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from the OP no.2 through OP no.1 and the premium of said insurance was deducted from the account of complainant. The premium was deducted by the OP no.1 regarding the insurance of crops for the year kharif 2018 amounting to Rs.1958/- on 27.07.2018. It is further averred that the kharif crop in the area of complainant was destroyed/damaged due to heavy rains. The complainant alongwith other co-sharer moved application to OP no.2 with whom the crops were insured for payment of the amount of damages of her crops. The land owners of surrounding areas were paid the loss/damages of the kharif crop 2018 in January, 2019 to March 2019 directly into their account. But complainant kept on waiting for the amount of damage of her crops. Complainant contacted the OPs and requested to pay the compensation of damages crop but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and jurisdiction. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has obtained crop loan under Kisan Credit Scheme and is having account no.36934818940 with the OP no.1. It is further pleaded that the crops of the complainant in the mortgaged land was duly insured under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna with the OP no.2 and requisite premium was paid by the OP no.1 to OP no.2 by debiting the loan account of the complainant regarding insurance of crops for the kharif 2018 amounting to Rs.1958/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.              OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has not provided any information regarding the payment of premium to the insurance company, date of intimation of loss as well as the land owned by him. It is duty of the OP no.1 to collect the premium and to pay the same to the insurance company and loaded the necessary data regarding insurance of the crops on the portal of Government of India within stipulated period but OP no.1 did not supply any information regarding the payment of premium, date of premium as well as the date of loading of date on the Government portal. It is further pleaded that as per date available on the Government portal, duly filled by OP no.1, no insurable interest has been paid to OP in lieu of insurance of crop of complainant and complainant kharif crop has also not got damaged in any manner. The insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with scheme of PMFBY and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant. In the present case, complainant is claiming for kharif crop of village Sangroli, Tehsil Dhand District Kaithal but the alleged loss to the crop was not covered. It is further pleaded that as per guideline of PMFBY Scheme immediate intimation was to be given within stipulated hours but complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss of crop which reveals violation of terms and conditions of scheme. Apart from non-intimation of claim, complainant has also not supplied any proof for loss or weather index report of Metrological Department of India in support of claim which establishes that alleged loss of crop had never occurred in the area. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bank statement of complainant Ex.C1, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2015-2016 Ex.C2, copy of Mutations no.3143, 3144, 3152, 3146 Ex.C3 to Ex.C6, copy of application moved by complainant to CM Window Ex.C7, copy of bank statement of Ravinder Singh Ex.C8, copy of bank statement of Rajinder Singh Ex.C9, copy of bank statement of Sona Devi Ex.C10, copy of bank statement of Ritu Devi Ex.C11, copy of report of rainfall September, 2018 Ex.C12, copy of survey report of farmer Ravinder Singh Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on 19.08.2021.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Krishan Chander, Branch Manager Ex.OPW1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 14.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Dinesh Kumar, Assistant Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R1, copy of guidelines of PMFBY scheme Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 29.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant has obtained cash credit limit for agriculture/loan from the OP no.1 under scheme of cash credit agriculture and for the purpose of loan. He had mortgaged his agriculture land in favour of OP no.1 and OP no.1 has provided crop insurance, under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna through the OP no.2 and OP no.1 had debiting the insurance premium from the account of the complainant from time to time for the insurance of crop and the said amount was remitted in the account of OP no.2. Learned counsel for complainant further argued that complainant had sown paddy crop in his land in the month of June/July, 2018 but due to heavy rain, the crop was badly damaged and thereafter, complainant alongwith other co-sharer moved application to OP no.2 with whom the crops were insured for payment of the amount of damages of their crops. The land owners of surrounding areas were paid the loss/damages of the kharif crop 2018 in January, 2019 to March 2019 directly into their account but complainant did not receive any amount of damage of her crops.  Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs several times to make the payment of compensation but they failed to pay the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per-contra, learned counsel of OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that after deduction of premium amount, under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.1 had remitted premium in the account of insurance company, so there is no fault on the part of the bank/OP no.1 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP no.1

11.           Learned counsel of OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant has not provided any information regarding the payment of premium to the insurance company, date of intimation of loss as well as the land owned by him. It is duty of the OP no.1 to collect the premium and to pay the same to the insurance company and loaded the necessary data regarding insurance of the crops on the portal of Government of India within stipulated period but OP no.1 did not supply any information regarding the payment of premium, date of premium as well as the date of loading of date on the Government portal. Complainant is claiming for kharif crop of village Sangroli, Tehsil Dhand District Kaithal but the alleged loss to the crop was not covered. As per guideline of PMFBY Scheme immediate intimation was to be given within stipulated hours but complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss of crop which reveals violation of terms and conditions of scheme. Apart from non-intimation of claim, complainant has also not supplied any proof for loss or weather index report of Metrological Department of India in support of claim which establishes that alleged loss of crop had never occurred in the area and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land and the crop of the complainant was insured with the OP no.2 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. It is also an admitted that the insurance premium was duly deducted from the account of the complainant by OP no.1 and this fact is also proved from the statement of account of complainant Ex.C1/Ex.OP1.

14.           As per the version of the complainant her paddy crop was totally damaged due to heavy rainfall and in this regard she had intimated to OPs and applied for compensation. Complainant has also taken a plea that the land owners of surrounding areas were paid the loss/damages of the kharif crop 2018 in January, 2019 to March 2019 directly into their account but nothing were paid to the complainant. The Onus to prove to her version lies upon the complainant, but complainant has miserably failed to prove her case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence.

 

15.           There is nothing on the file to prove that the crop of the complainant has been damaged due to heavy rainfall and complainant has intimated the Agriculture Department as well as OPs in this regard. There is also nothing on file to prove that complainant submitted the claim with the OPs as alleged by her. Hence, present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed.

16.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we found no merits in the complaint and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:16.12.2022

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

      Member                       Member

 

Sushma

Stenographer