Haryana

Kaithal

254/21

Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kirpal Singh

20 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                Complaint No.: 254/21.

                                                Date of institution:08.10.2021

                                                Date of decision:20.09.2023.

Pawan Kumar son of Sh. Chatru resident of Village Saran, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. The Manager, Union Bank of India, Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch manager.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Kaithal Room No. 305, Secretariat, Kaithal.                                                                                                                                                                                                         ...Respondents.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection, Act.

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

 

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

                Sh. O.P. Gulati, Advocate for OP No. 1.

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for OP No. 2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, G.P. for OP No. 3.

 

ORDER

SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

1.             Pawan Kumar, Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondents.

2.             It is alleged in the complaint that complainant is permanent resident of village Saran Tehsil and District Kaithal and as per Jamabandi attached by complainant which shows that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned agricultural land measuring area 2 acre 16 kanal situated at Village Saran Tehsil and District, Kaithal.  He sown Kharif (Paddy) crop in the season of 2018-2019 and got insured his crop under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) for the year 2018-2019 with opposite party No. 2 i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and had also paid Rs. 1332.58/- as premium amount for the same through his account No. 387705030110113 of Union Bank of India. There were heavy rains in the area on 23/24.09.2018 due to which, his standing Kharif crops was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OP No. 3 thereafter concerned official of OP No. 3 visited the flood affected area and assessed 70% damage of paddy crops. The officials assured the complainant to reimburse this loss within 1-2 months.  He visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but they failed to release the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their respective written statements.

4.             Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  OP No.1, in its written statement specifically stated that he has no 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 Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) and notification dated 17.06.2016 issued by Government of Haryana bearing memo No. 3009/Agri.II (I)-2016/10854 and notification 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 on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018 amounting to Rs.1332.58/- and as such premium amount was transfer in the account of OP No. 2. There is no deficiency in service on their part, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

5.             OP No. 2  in his written statement specifically stated that the complainant is not insured with the answering respondents. In the present complaint, the complainant is allegedly claiming for loss paddy crops of village Saran which was allegedly insured through respondent No. 1 Bank. 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; 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..  There is no deficiency in service on their part, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them. 

6.             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

7.             The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents annexure C-1 & annexure C-2 and closed his evidence.

8.             On the other hand, OP No. 1, in order to support their case, tendered affidavit EX.RW1/A and documents annexure R14 to annexure R20 and closed its evidence. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and document annexure R-1 to annexure R-13 closed the same. OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RW3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No. 3

9.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

10.            Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned agricultural land measuring area 2 acre 16 kanal situated at Village Saran Tehsil and District, Kaithal.  He sown Kharif (Paddy) crop in the season of 2018-2019 and got insured his crop under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) for the year 2018-2019 with opposite party No. 2 i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and had also paid Rs. 1332.58/- as premium amount for the same through his account No. 387705030110113 of Union Bank of India. There were heavy rains in the area on 23/24.09.2018 due to which, his standing Kharif crops was destroyed.  In this regard, he duly informed the OP No. 3 thereafter concerned official of OP No. 3 visited the flood affected area and assessed 70% damage of paddy crops. The officials assured the complainant to reimburse this loss within 1-2 months.  He visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but they failed to release the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has argued that the premium amount of Rs.1332.58/- paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif-2018 (paddy) and was remitted to respondent No.2 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  It was the duty of OP No.2-insurance company to compulsorily verify and to reconcile the data uploaded by the bank and to take necessary information and action regarding insurance policy of farmers through National Crop Insurance Portal within stipulated date/cut off date and in case of any deficiency/mismatch same would have to be reported to concerned bank branch/State. 

12.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-Insurance Company has argued that 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.  It is further argued 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 the absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim.  Merely, allegation of claim intimation is not enough to establish that the loss had actually been occurred.      

13.            Sh. Pushpinder Saini, 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.   

14.            So far how much loss the complainant has suffered is concerned.  As per Annexure-R18, the insured land is 0.90650 hectare which comes as approximately 2.24 acre.  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 the OP No.1 bank, but nothing has been done on the part of OP No.2 and this Commission rely 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”.  

15.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was the required for OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmers concerned to OP No.1 bank after pointing out any discrepancy on its end, within the period of cut off 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 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, if any, to the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his crop.

16.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5892.48 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 2.24 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.13,199/- (Rs.5892.48 paise x 2.24 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Insurance Company.         

17.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.13,199/- 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.     

18.            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 record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.09.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),          

                                Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.