Haryana

Kaithal

CC/154/2022

Vijay Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,HDFC Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kirpal Singh

21 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 154 of 2022.

                                                               Date of institution:   09.06.2022.

                                                               Date of decision:      21.11.2023.

 

Vijay Kaur w/o Shri Ram Chander, r/o Village Kutabpur, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. The Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, Plot No.77/10 and 78/10, near Pehowa Chowk, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Office Cabin No. 07, 3^rd Floor, Agri. Mall, Sector-20, Panchkula (Haryana).
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No.305, Secretariat, Kaithal.

...Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI  SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

                  

Present:       Shri Kirpal Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri O.P. Gulati, Adv. for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. for Opposite Party No.2.

                   Shri Sunil Kumar, PO, Reprt. for Opposite Party No.3.

                  

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned and possessed land measuring  13.1 acre (104 Kanal 6 Marla). It is alleged that she has an account No.50200017857067 with the respondent No.1, who got insured her crop for the year 2019-2020 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.5008.50/- on 06.12.2019 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 06.03.2020 to 14.03.2020, the Rabi (Wheat) crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined. She 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 35% damage of wheat crop in his agriculture land. She requested the OPs to pay the said amount, but they did not do so. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.    

3.             Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  Respondents No.1 in its written statement specifically stated that he has not role about issuance of crop insurance policy or about processing and adjudication of insurance claim pertaining to present complaint. It is stated that as per operational guidelines of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) an notification dated 30.03.2018 issued by Government of Haryana bearing memo No. 941-Agri-II (i) 2018/4332 dated 30.03.2018 crops were require to be covered under this PMFBY, Scheme compulsorily. It is further submitted that as per PMFBY, scheme the bank debited from respective KCC account  of complainant for Fasal Bima Yojna of wheat amounting to Rs.5008.50/- and as such premium amount was transferred in the account of OP No. 2 vide UTR/Transaction Number N355191014532600 on 21.12.2019. There is no deficiency in service on their part, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.  

4.                Respondent No.2 filed the written version mentioning therein that that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of wheat crop has been affected in village as per averments of the complaint, the loss of wheat crop has been affected in village Kutabpur Tehsil and District 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 “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other instructions that are part of this scheme’ that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of wheat 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. So, the complainant was not entitled for yield loss as per terms and conditions of the scheme. Moreover, under localized based claim, complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to answering OP within stipulated period of 48 hours of alleged loss to process the claim as per terms and conditions of the scheme. On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent. To other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

5.                OP 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 OP randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

6.                To prove the case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3.

7.                On the other hand, OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A. OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R8. OP No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R9 to annexure R16. 

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.                Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned and possessed land measuring  13.1 acre (104 Kanal 6 Marla) comprised in situated at village Kutabpur, Tehsil and District Kaithal. It is further argued that the complainant has an account No.50200017857067 with the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of wheat for the period 2019-2020 with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.5008.50/- on 06.12.2019 as insurance premium amount. It is further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 06.03.2020 to 14.03.2020, the Rabi (Wheat) 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 35% damage of wheat crop in his agriculture land. The complainant requested the respondents to pay the said amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.

10.              On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No. 1 argued that as per PMFBY, Scheme the bank debited from respective KCC account of complainant for Fasal Bima Yojna of wheat amounting to Rs.5008.50 and such premium amount was transferred to respondent No.2 in their account vide UTR/Transaction No.N355191014532600 on 21.12.2019 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 1.

11.              Ld. counsel for OP No.2-Insurance Company has argued that as per the scheme provided for insurance cover to the farmers at individual farm level to crop losses due to occurrence of localized perils/calamities viz. Hailstorm, landslide, inundation, cloud burst and natural fir due to lightening affecting isolated farms in the notified area. It is further argued that the OP No.2 has not received any intimation of crop loss from the complainant farmer for Kharif 2019 season for the above mention crop which is a condition precedent under the scheme for individual claim assessment. Thereby, no individual claims are assessed/payable due to the farmer for Kharif 2019 season. It is further argued that the loss of wheat crop has been affected in village Kutabpur, Tehsil and district 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 which shows as Ex. R13 Para No.4 Sub Para No. IV. i.e. “Localized Calamities; Loss/Damage resulting from occurrence of Identified localized risks of hailstorm, landslide and inundation affecting isolated farms will be covered”. The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

12.              Sh. Sunil Kumar, GP for 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 further argued that the survey was conducted at village level randomly and report was prepared at the spot.

13.              There is no dispute that the complainant is an agriculturist and having a bank account with OP No.1 bank bearing account No.50200017857067, who deducted Rs.5008.50 on 06.12.2019 from the said account, on account of premium for ‘PMFBY’ for Rabbi 2019-20, as is evident from Statement of Account Ex.C-1. 

14.              The grievance of the complainant is that due to untimely heavy rainfall in the area, his Rabi crop was damaged and the Agriculture Deptt. assessed 70% damage to his crop, but OP No.2 failed to release the said claim amount to the complainant, despite repeated requests, made by him.

15.              On the other hand, OP No.1 has admitted about deducting the premium amount of Rs.5008.50 from the account of complainant and stated that OP No.1 had remitted the said amount to OP No.2 in their account vide UTR/Transaction No.N355191014532600 on 21.12.2019 and this fact is evident from document Ex.R-3.

16.              On the other hand, OP No.2 in its written statement has raised objection that intimation regarding loss was not given by the complainant. To rebut the said contention, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the law, laid down in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Puran & Ors. 2021(2) CLT 171, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 19.12.2019, wherein, it is held by the Hon’ble National Commission that “Plea of insurance company that no privity of contract between petitioner and complainant and no intimation of loss given-Admittedly, premium for crop insurance came to be paid from accounts of complainant-Therefore, it cannot be said that complainant is not consumers of petitioner company-Further, in view of alleged failure to intimate loss to insurer, written version filed by HDFC Bank before District Commission shows that scheme did not envisage any such intimation-Therefore, revision petitions dismissed with liberty to petitioner company to avail such remedy as may be open to it in law against concerned Govt”. The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case. So, in view of case law, the contention of OP No.2 that no intimation was given, by the complainant, regarding the loss, has no force, hence rejected.

17.               Learned counsel for OP No.2 insurance company has further contended that the loss of wheat crop has been affected in village Kutabpur due to the Heavy Rain Fall, which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme as mentioned in Ex.R13 Para No.4 Sub Para No. IV. i.e. “Localized Calamities; Loss/Damage resulting from occurrence of Identified localized risks of hailstorm, landslide and inundation affecting isolated farms will be covered”. But this contention of learned counsel for OP No.2 has no force, in view of sub Clause (iv) of Para No.4 of said Notification, wherein it is specifically mentioned that “Localized Calamities: Loss/Damage resulting from occurrence of identified localized risks of hailstorm, landslide, and inundation affecting isolated farms will be covered”. In the case in hand, wheat crop of complainant has been damaged due to rainfall, which covers under “inundation”, which also occurs due to rainfall as well. Moreover, in Ex.C-2, which is Loss Assessment Report, at page No.2, there is specifically mentioned “jalbarav” i.e. inundation, which specifically covers under sub Clause (iv) of Para No.4 of said Notification. Moreover, this report Ex.C-2 was duly signed by representative of Agriculture Department as well as representative of OP No.2 insurance company, who were present at the time of inspection of crop of complainant and thereafter, prepared the said Loss Assessment Report. 

18.              So far the liability is concerned; if there was any discrepancy in the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) etc. of the farmers concerned, then it was required for the OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the said amount, within two months of cutoff date, to OP No.1 bank, but nothing has been done, on the part of OP No.2 and this Commission relies upon in this regard on Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018” and its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii is relevant, which reads as under:-

“xxii) The Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the Insurance Company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim”.  

19.              So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was required for OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmer concerned to OP No.1 bank, after pointing out any discrepancy on its end, within the period of cutoff date of two months, but in the case in hand, OP No.2 had neither raised any objection within the period of cutoff date of two months nor intimated to OP No.1 bank regarding any discrepancy in this regard and kept the premium amount with it, and now at the time when crops of complainant was destroyed and he is demanding the claim amount, as per policy from it, then OP No.2 refused to pay the same on this flimsy ground, which amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. As such, the OP No.2 insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount, to the complainant, for the loss, suffered by the complainant, due to destruction/damage of his crop.

20.              In the present case, in Mark-A, the Agriculture Department has assessed the based on Localized Survey to the tune of Rs.3851.69. Hence, for 13.1 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the total amount of Rs.50457.13 (Rs.3851.69 x 13.1 acre), which shall be paid, by OP No.2 to the complainant.        

21.              Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.50457.13, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization, within 45 days, from today. OP No.2-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-, on account of physical harassment and mental agony, suffered by the complainant as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges, to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.     

22.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP 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 records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:21.11.2023.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.