Haryana

Kaithal

14/20

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,HDFCBank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Pardeep Dhull

22 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.14 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 09.01.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:22.12.2022.

Suresh Kumar age 45 years S/o Sh. Bhalle Ram, r/o Village Kheri Rai Wali, near Dada Khera, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank Rajound, Kaithal.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road near I.G.School,
3.  Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
4. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No.305, Secretariat, Kaithal.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Pardeep Dhull, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, 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

        Suresh Kumar-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 and possessed land measuring 6½ acre, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.17258040000047 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 year 2017-18 with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.10,701/- 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 and 24 September, 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% to 95% 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 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.  Respondents 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.10,701.60 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 16.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif-2018 and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account No.0248002100026568 of PNB through NEFT No.N22618060989096 on 14.08.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Soft copy of consolidated detailed list of farmers/proposals/declarations pertaining to different villages (who were loanee farmer of respondent No.1 bank) including that of present complainant were prepared/uploaded on PMFBY Portal within prescribed time/cut off date by respondent No.1 and such consolidated proposal/list of farmers/declaration were also submitted to respondent No.2 well within time.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct; that as per survey report, the claim of complainant has not been made on threshold yield basis; that the complainant has not filed any individual application for assessing his loss, so no claim is made out on the threshold hold basis and present complaint is not maintainable; 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, however, it is made clear that insurance of farmers have been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by the banker of farmer and in case there is any mistake done by the bank of the complainant, the insurance company cannot be held liable for the 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.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C2 to Annexure-C6 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-R10, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R11 & Annexure-R12 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             ­­­­Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and he has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6609.08 paise per acre.  Hence, for 6.5 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.42,959/- (Rs.6609.08 paise x 6.5 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.42,959/- 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.  In the present case, respondent No.1-bank has given wrong name of the area in which land was under survey for the damage of crops.  The name of the area is actually Kheri Rai Wali while negligently, the officials of bank-respondent No.1 have given wrong name of the area to be Rohera.  So, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank-respondent No.1 which shall be paid to the complainant.  The name of village be corrected in the record. 

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents 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.:22.12.2022.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.