Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/69/2020

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

state Of Haryana - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Vashisth

29 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                           

               Complaint Case No. :  69 of 2020

                                                                  Date of Institution    :  17.07.2020

                                                                        Date of Decision      :  29.08.2024    

 

Vijay Kumar son of Sh. Balbir Singh son of Sh. Sartu @ Santu R/o village Talu, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

          ..…Complainant.

 

  Versus

 

1.       Haryana State through Collector, Bhiwani.

 

2.       I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Insurance Company Ltd., having one of its branch office Hisar through its Branch Manager.

 

3.       H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd., branch Office, Meham Gate, Bhiwani.

 

4.       Tehsildar Sahab, Revenue Department, District Bhiwani.

 

5.       Deputy Director of Agriculture Department, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

                                                                                .…Opposite Parties

   

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:        Sh. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for complainant.        

                    Sh. Rajender Verma, Advocate for OP No.2.

                    Sh. Anuj, Project Officer on behalf of OPs No. 1 & 5.

                    OP No.3 exparte vide order dated 08.10.2020.

                    None for OP No.4 (defence struck off).

 

ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER.

 

1.              Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is owner in possession of agriculture land 84 kanals 16 marlas situated with revenue estate of village Talu, District Bhiwani. It is stated that as per scheme under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojan, complainant got insured his crops from OPs during the years 2017-2018 and for this purpose OPs No.2 & 3 bank deducted Rs. 7574.40p. on 16.07.2018 and Rs.5246.85p. on 04.12.2018 from the bank account No.50200005464860 of complainant for insurance amount of the crops in the year 2017-18 and 2018-19. After that on 06.12.2019, the OP bank has also deducted Rs.4970.70p. for crop insurance.  It is stated that in the year 2017-2019, due to drought and heat, crops in 10 acres completely destroyed/damaged/ruined. It is stated that there was average produce of wheat at Rs.25,000/- per acre and produce of Bajra was Rs.20,000/-, Ikh (sugarcane) was Rs.30,000/- and Dhan produce was Rs.30,000/- and nearby farmers have already been disbursed  compensation for their damaged crop but no compensation has been paid to complainant despite making various efforts with the concerned authorities and issuance of legal notice dated 07.02.2020. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs and direct them to pay Rs.3.00 lac to the complainant for damaged crop Kharif 2017, 2018 and Rabi 2019. Further to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for harassment. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit, has also been sought.

2.              Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 5 filed its written statement submitting that crop of complainant was not insured for the season Kharif 2018 whereas during the season 2018-19, only wheat crop of complainant was insured but the complainant never gave any intimation qua damage to his crop. It is submitted that the answering OP after doing necessary survey sent a report to the higher authorities and Oriental Insurance Company  and if the complainant is entitled to any claim, it may be sought from the insurance company. It is submitted that Ikh(sugarcane) is not a insured crop under PMFBY. As such, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.              OP No.2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections maintainability of complaint, locus standi, cause of action, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that crop of complainant was not insured with it. No premium has ever been received by it from complainant or by his banker. Thus complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from answering OP. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.              OP No.3 did not bother to appear despite notice to it and thus was proceeded against as exparte vide order dated 08.10.2022.

5.              Written statement on behalf of OP No.4 not filed despite availing sufficient opportunities. Therefore, defence of OP No.4 was struck off vide order dated 18.07.2022.

6.              In evidence of complainant, his affidavit Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-2 were produced and closed the evidence on 17.08.2022.

7.              OPs No. 1, 5 & 2 adopted their written statements to be read in their evidence and then closed the same on 18.12.2023.

8.              We have heard final arguments from both the sides and have gone through the entire case file minutely.

9.                 The defence of OP insurance company is that it has not received any premium from complainant or his banker, therefore, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Complainant in order to prove the factum that insurance premium amount was deducted from bank account with OP No.3 has placed on record his bank account statement (Annexure C-11) which reveals that Rs.7574.40p was deducted by OP No.3 from his bank account on 16.07.2018, Rs.5246.85p on 04.12.2018 and Rs.4970.70p. on 16.12.2019. Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued that since the amount of insurance premium has been deducted from his bank account by OP No.3, therefore, complainant is entitled to get compensation for the damaged crop from OPs.

10.               Perusal of e-mail (Annexure C-22) sent by OP No.3 bank to  complainant inter-alia says that ‘We wish to inform you that as per Government guidelines Aadhar details is mandatory for availing crop insurance. We notices during the implementation of Scheme for Kharif 2018 that your Aadhar details were not updated with Bank. Your insurance proposal was therefore not accepted/registered in the National Crop Insurance Portal. We have already initiated request to insurance company to refund the premium paid to them as per scheme guidelines. We shall credit the premium to your KGC Account held with us immediately on receipt of the refund information from insurance company.’

11.               After hearing learned counsels for the parties and going through the record, we have observed that on the one hand, OP bank is averring that Aadhar details of complainant was not updated with it then as to why, the bank has deducted insurance premium from the bank account of complainant and remitted the same to the concerned OP insurance company which is a big flaw on the part of OP bank.  As per operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, 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 to them.  From a letter dated 01.10.2018 of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-13), there was loss to the crop of Paddy, Bajra, and Maize due to inundation in various parts of District Bhiwani during the relevant period of loss caused to the crop of complainant. Complainant has placed on record bank account statement of Mr. Bhisham Umed (Annexure C-1) whereby it is evident that on 25.04.2019, this farmer has received compensation of Rs.2,67,214/- as claim under PMFBY for the cotton crop during kharif 2018.

12.               In view of above discussion, we have come to conclusion that OP No.3 bank is deficient in providing proper services to the complainant, therefore, it is held responsible to compensate the complainant for the loss caused to his crops as well as for mental and physical harassment to him.  Complainant in order to prove his ownership over the alleged land and sowing of crop has placed on record copy of khasra girdawari (Annexure C-15 to Annexure C-17) supported with affidavit tendered in his evidence wherefrom it is evident that during the relevant season complainant had sown crop of wheat and paddy. As per Annexure C-14 alongwith Annexure-A, there was 60% loss to the paddy crop due to inundation during the season  kharif 2018 and Rabi 2018-2019 but there is no mention of loss to the wheat crop in village Talu.  Further, the girdawari, does not show that complainant had sown cotton crop in his fields as alleged. Therefore, as per record and pleadings, complainant, there was loss to the paddy crop in 5 acres and insured rate of the paddy during the season was Rs.73,500/- per hectare, and loss to the paddy was 60%, therefore, the complainant is entitled to Rs.88,200/- as compensation for loss to the paddy crop. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed and OP No.3 bank is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

 (i)      To pay Rs.88,200/- (Rs. Eighty eight thousand two hundred) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.

(ii)      To pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) as compensation for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay Rs. 5500/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OP  No.3 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party no.3 may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated:29.08.2024