Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/188/2019

Yudhister Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sanjay Ranila

27 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

 

                                        RBT No. 188 of 22.10.2019

                                                Complaint Case No. 633 of 2019

                                                Date of Institution: 07.08.2019

                                                Date of Decision: 27.09.2024

Yudhister Singh son of Shri Sube Singh, resident of village Sai, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                                                      ... Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. State Bank of India, branch office at Baund Kalan, Sub Tehsil Baund Kalan, District Charkhi Dadri, through its authorized signatory.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited., Head office at New Delhi and one of its Branch situated at Opp. Nehru Park, Circular Road, Bhiwani, through its authorized signatory.

 

                                                                             ...Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

 

BEFORE:  HON’BLE MR. MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   HON’BLE MR. DHARAM PAL RAUHILLA, MEMBER

 

Present:      Sh. Sanjay Ranila, counsel for the complainant.

                    Sh. Mukesh Jangra, counsel for opposite party no.2.

                   OP no.1 exparte vide order dt.03.02.2020

ORDER:-

1. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that the complainant had insured his Kharif crop of Cotton under P.M.F.B.Y./Modified National Agriculture Insurance Scheme of 4.816 hect. acre land situated within the revenue estate of village Sai, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri and the opposite party no.1 had deducted a sum of Rs.6935.04 on account of insurance of cotton crop  Kharif 2018 and insured value of crop was Rs.3,46,752/-.  It is further submitted that the said crop of the complainant was destroyed/fully damaged and the complainant intimated the opposite party no.1 and submitted all the requisite documents. It is further submitted that bank assured the complainant that they would pay the insured amount of Rs.3,46,752/- as and when his claim will be passed by the insurance company. It is further submitted that the complainant contacted the opposite party no.1 many times through telephonically but in spite of that the opposite party no.1 did not pay any heed on the genuine requests of the complainant and lastly the opposite party no.1 refused to pay any single penny to the complainant and told that they have been deposited the insurance premium amount of Rs.6935.04 in the bank account and now they are not liable to pay the insured amount. It is prayed that the opposite parties be directed to make payment of loss of the ruined crops of Rs.3,46,752/- along-with interest @ 18% per annum, Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses besides any other relief, to which the complainant is found entitled.
2. The opposite party no.2 has contested the complaint and filed written statement and contended that the complainant has no legal right to file the present complaint against the opposite party no.2. As per provisions of PMFBY, Banks are required to upload the insured farmers’ data mandatorily on the National Crop Insurance Portal. No other platform shall be used for uploading/submission of farmers’ data. Those farmers whose data is uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal shall only be eligible for insurance coverage and accordingly the premium subsidy will also be released. In cases where farmers are denied crop insurance due to incorrect/partial/non-uploading of their details on portal concerned Banks/Intermediaries shall be responsible for payment of claims. Banks, CSC and Insurance Agents are required to remit the premium payment to respective insurance company mandatorily through Payment gateway (Pay-Gov) of National Crop Insurance Portal or through RTGS/NEFT followed by mandatory uploading of payment details of National Crop Insurance Portal within stipulated date. In case of any loss in transit due to negligence by these agencies or non remittance of premium by these agencies, the concerned bank/intermediaries shall be liable for payment of claim. As per records no information/particulars of the farmer was uploaded on NICP till prescribed  cutoff date and no premium has been remitted to insurance company therefore complainant is not insured with the answering OP and the complainant unnecessary harass the opposite party no.2 in this complaint. Rest of the averments made by complainant has been denied by the opposite party no.2 and requested that the complainant is not entitled for any relief and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. On notice, no one appeared on behalf of the OP No. 1 despite service and OP No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide its order dated 03.02.2020.
4. The complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. PW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4 on 09.02.2021. 
5. Ld. Counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW2/A, documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R7 and closed his evidence on dated 26.7.2024.
6. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties have been heard and documents available on file have been perused.
7. Brief facts of the case of complainant are that the crop of the complainant was not insured by OP no.2. Bank is liable for the deficiency  for not giving the premium deducted from the account of the complainant to the insurance company. Consequent thereupon the crop of cotton was not insured. As regards the loss to the crop the complainant has not given any evidence despite giving ample opportunities for the same. Simultaneously he has submitted application for witness of the Halka Patwari of village Sai and ADO, Agriculture Deptt. For which he has not made payment of the diet money and witness could not be presented before this Commission. It creates doubt whether there was any loss to the crop or not. It is further perused that the complainant has not produced any document to show that he intimated agriculture department regarding loss of his crop. The complainant has further failed to prove that why he could not approach the competent authority and whether he moved any application and how much loss was occurred to his crop. There is not a single document on file to prove that the complainant approached to get claim of his damaged crop and has failed to produce any cogent or convincing evidence to prove his case properly.
8.           Thus, in view of the above observations, complaint of complainant is dismissed.  Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.