Haryana

Kaithal

435/19

Raghubir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Vikram Singh Tarun

24 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.435 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 18.12.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:24.02.2023.

Raghubir aged about 64 years son of Sh. Ram Kishan r/o Village Sogri, Tehsil Rajound, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Union Bank of India Kaithal near Gyarah Rudhari Shiv Mandir Kaithal through its Manager, Distt. Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its  Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Secretariat, Kaithal.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

               

Present:     Sh. Vikram Singh Turan, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Karan Kalra, Adv. for the respondent No.1.

                Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for the respondent.No.2.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Raghubir-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 4 acres situated at Village Sogri, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.387705030109806 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the cotton crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2018-19 with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amounts of Rs.2156/- on 31.07.2018 and Rs.1164/- on 13.12.2018 respectively as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in the month of August, 2018 the cotton crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to respondent No.3, and the complainant moved an application No.8297 dt. 23, 24, 25.09.2018 for inspection of crop but the respondents No.2 & 3 did not inspect the crop.  It is further alleged that all the 4 acres of land of complainant was damaged.  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 written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; to implement the scheme of PMFBY, premium amounts were debited from respective KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018-19 and such premium amount was remitted to the respondent No.2 itself 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 as per record, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of cotton crop has been affected in Village Songri, District Kaithal, due to the reason mentioned as “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; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of cotton 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.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the 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-C1 to Annexure-C15 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith document Annexure-R1, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure-R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             It has been argued by Sh. Vikram Singh Turan, Adv. for the complainant that the bank officials have wrongly cited the crop to be paddy while it was actually cotton crop which was insured through Union Bank of India, Kaithal-respondent No.1.  To rebut the contention of ld. counsel for the complainant, Sh. Karan Kalra, Adv. for the respondent No.1-bank has stated that kharif includes both the cotton as-well-as paddy crop and specially insurance was not mentioned of crop paddy. 

9.             ­­­­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.7896.36 paise per acre.  Hence, for 4 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.31,585/- (Rs.7896.36 paise x  4 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.31,585/- 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.:24.02.2023.

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

                (Suman Rana),          

                Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.