Haryana

Kaithal

404/19

Shamsher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Kaithal Central Coop.Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Dalbir Chahal

20 Dec 2022

ORDER

               

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.404/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 03.12.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:20.12.2022.

Shamsher Singh S/o Sh. Vijay Singh R/o Village Kithana, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Kaithal Central Coop. Bank Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Kithana, Tehsil Rajaund, Distt. Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company through is Branch Manager, Railway Road, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.
3. Distt. Agriculture Officer, Sector-7, Kaithal.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. D.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

                Sh. M.R.Miglani, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Shamsher Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and has 4 acre land in Village Kithana, Distt. Kaithal.  The complainant took a KCC Loan from respondent No.1 vide account No.2059.  It is alleged that in the year 2018, the complainant had sown paddy crops in his 4 acre land and also insured the same with the respondents vide Govt. Scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” and an amount of Rs.2379.56 paise on 18.07.2018 as insurance premium was deducted by the respondent No.1 from his above-said KCC account in lieu of said crop insurance.  It is further alleged that on 16/17.07.2018 the paddy crops of the complainant was damaged/ruined due to heavy rain and flow of water.  On 18.07.2018, the complainant approached the respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Agriculture Officer, Kaithal and lodged the complaint vide Sr.No.4236 dt. 18.07.2018 and thereafter, the team of Agriculture Office inspected the fields of complainant and submitted their report that the paddy crop cultivated by complainant was damaged upto 80-90% in 4 acres.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the respondents to pay the compensation/claim/insured amount of his paddy crops but the respondents did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written statements separately.  Respondent No.1 raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the answering respondent has only debited an amount of Rs.2379.56 paise for 4 acre vide debit note dt. 18.07.2018 issued by PACS Kithana under “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yozna” to the respondent No.2; that the complainant has no direct link or connection with the answering respondent; that the respondent No.1 is legally liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant has neither bank account with the answering respondent nor he availed any loan facility from the answering respondent.  The complainant has availed loan facility from the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society (PACS), Kithana.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint

3.             In the written statement, respondent No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that as per record, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of crop has been affected in Village Kithana, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy Rain Fall” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme and to prove the same, no documentary proof of any kind has been annexed with the complaint; that role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institutions that are part of this scheme.  In fact, as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Agricultural Department (Haryana Govt.), the actual yield is more than the threshold yield, hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company and the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Respondent No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi and evasively denied all the facts contained in the complaint and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 & Annexure-C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R3 & Annexure-R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             Sh. M.R.Miglani, Adv. for the respondent No.2-insurance company has stated that the amount of Rs.4163/- has already been given to the complainant.  The Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.16,156.80 per acre.  Hence, for 4 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.64,627/- (Rs.16,156.80 paise x 4 acre).   It is clear that the amount of Rs.4163/- has already been given to the complainant.  Therefore, after deducting the amount of Rs.4163/- from the total compensation amount of Rs.64,627/-, balance amount of Rs.60,464/- shall be paid by the respondent No.2-insurance company to the complainant.   

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.60,464/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted with cost.  The cost is assessed as Rs.5500/- which will be paid by the respondent No.2-insurance company to the complainant.        

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent No.2 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. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.12.2022.

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.