Ram Chander filed a consumer case on 05 Apr 2023 against The Manager.SBI in the Kaithal Consumer Court. The case no is 444/19 and the judgment uploaded on 07 Apr 2023.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.444 of 2019.
Date of institution: 20.12.2019.
Date of decision:05.04.2023.
Ram Chander S/o Arjun Singh r/o Khurana Road, Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Aseem Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. O.P.Gulati, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.
Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent No.2.
Sh. Pushpinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT
Ram Chander-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 owned 55 Kanal 2 Marla acre, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint. It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.32828294276 with the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.4093/- on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount. It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 23-09-2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined. The complainant instantly reported the matter to respondent No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of complainant alongwith officials of respondent No.2 and assessed 90% damage of wheat crop in his agriculture land. The complainant requested the respondents to pay the claim amount but they did not do so. 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 version separately. Respondent No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the premium amount of Rs.4093/- was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018 (Paddy) and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account No.0248002100026568 on 07.08.2019 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also vide UTR No.SBIN118219703469. It is relevant to mention here that data of farmers (including that the present complainant) was uploaded on PMFBY Portal within prescribed time (i.e. before cut of data) and consolidated premium was also remitted to OP No.2 before cut off date. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Respondents No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that as per averments of the complaint, the complainant had sown wheat crop in Rabi Season but due to heavy rainfall, loss of rice crop has been affected in Village Khurana, Distt. Kaithal, the procedure best know to the complainant that how he changed the wheat crop to rice crop during Rabi Season and moreover, the reason for los is 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. As per yield data of village Khurana provided by Govt., actual yield is more than the threshold yield and no such loss of crop on village level is recorded. So, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. However, it is made clear that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by Bank of farmers. If any mistake is done by bank of complainant or other institution, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim. 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 version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the fields of complainant as-well-as other farmers were inspected by the officials of answering respondent randomly on the basis of village level. The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R6, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R7 & Annexure-R8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
8. Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned 55 Kanal 2 Marla acre. It is argued that the complainant has an account No.32828294276 with the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.4093/- on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount. It is further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 23-09-2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined. The complainant instantly reported the matter to respondent No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of complainant alongwith officials of respondent No.2 and assessed 90% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land. The complainant requested the respondents to pay the claim amount but they did not do so. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.
9. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has argued that that the premium amount of Rs.4093/- was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018 (Paddy) and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account No.0248002100026568 on 07.08.2019 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also vide UTR No.SBIN118219703469 It has been further argued that the deficiency if any, is on the part of OP No.2.
10. Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-Insurance Company has argued that the complainant had sown wheat crop in Rabi Season but due to heavy rainfall, loss of rice crop has been affected in Village Khurana, Distt. Kaithal, the procedure best know to the complainant that how he changed the wheat crop to rice crop during Rabi Season and moreover, the reason for los is 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.
11. Sh. Pushpinder Singh, GP for the OP No.3-Agriculture Department has stated that the claim does not arise on average yield because in the present case, average yield is greater than threshold yield. He has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT at the time of arguments, which is Mark-A on the file.
12. The main contention of ld. counsel for the OP No.2-Insurance Company is that the complainant had sown wheat crop in Rabi Season but he has claimed loss of rice crop. As per pleadings in para No.4 of the complaint in the beginning, the complainant has clearly mentioned that due to untimely heavy rainfall in the area on 23.09.2018 the rice crop of complainant damaged/ruined due to “Rainwater lodging”, however, in the last he has mentioned the wheat crop which means that it is typographical mistake. To rebut the said contention of ld. counsel for the OP No.2, ld. counsel for the complainant has also drawn our attention towards the report of Agriculture Department, Mark-A, wherein in the column of name of crop-Paddy, 2018 is mentioned. So, the said contention of ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has no force.
13. In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9133.34 paise per acre. Hence, for 6 acre 7 kanal 2 marla loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.54,800/- for 6 acre+Rs.7992/- for 7 kanal+Rs.114/- for 2 marla loss, which becomes total loss of Rs.62,906/-. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Insurance Company.
14. Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.62,906/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today. The OP No.2-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against OP No.2-Insurance Company and dismissed against OPs No.1 & 3.
15. 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.:05.04.2023.
(Neelam Kashyap)
President.
(Sunil Mohan Trikha), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.