Haryana

Kaithal

99/20

Darshan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.S.Pannu

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.99 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 27.02.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:27.02.2023.

Darshan Singh S/o Gurcharan @ Chanan Singh, aged 52 years, resident of Village Kheri Daban, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Union Bank of India, Plot No.9, Kaithal Road Cheeka through its Branch Manager Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No.103, Secretariat, Kaithal.

..Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                       

Present:     Sh. J.S.Pannu, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the respondent No.1.

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for respondent No.2.

                Sh. Balkar Singh, ASO Reprt. for respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Darshan 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 owned agriculture land having 79 Kanals 17 marla situated at Village Kheridaban, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.545505030000685 with the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 had insured the crop of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2018 with the respondent No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.5854/- in the name of ‘Crop Insurance’ from the account of complainant.  It is further alleged that in Kharif Season of 2018, the complainant had sown paddy crop upon these agriculture land but due to untimely heavy rainfall, the paddy crop of complainant was damaged/ruined due to “Rainwater lodging”.  The complainant reported the matter to respondent No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural field of complainant and assessed 50% damage of paddy crop.  The complainant lodged the claim with the respondent No.2 but the respondent No.2 did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.  Hence, this complaint is filed.         

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.5854/- crop was debited from KCC account of complainant on 30.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif, 2018 and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account No.0248002100026568 of Oriental Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 with Punjab National Bank through NEFT bearing uTR No.UBINH18218124126 on 06.08.2018 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.  It is further stated that as per bank record, respondent No.2 has processed and adjudicated the Kharif, 2018 (paddy) claim qua crops of present complainant and accordingly, an amount of Rs.19,060/- was received by respondent No.1 as compensation amount and which has also been transferred in the CC account of complainant on 11.04.2019.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondent No.2 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 as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Kheri Daban, Tehsil Guhla, 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.  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 till date no intimation has been received by answering respondent regarding loss of alleged crop.  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, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents  Annexure-R4 to Annexure-R8, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R9 to Annexure-R15 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of respondents.

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

8.             Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the respondent No.2-insurance company has stated that the amount of Rs.19,060/- has already been given to the complainant which shall be deducted from the main amount of compensation.  The Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9979.20 paiseper acre.  Hence, for 10 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.99,792/- (Rs.9979.20 paise x 10 acre).   It is clear that the amount of Rs.19,060/- has already been given to the complainant.  Therefore, after deducting the amount of Rs.19,060/- from the total compensation amount of Rs.99,792/-, balance amount of Rs.80,732/- 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.80,732/- 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.:27.02.2023.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

                (Suman Rana),          

                Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.