Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/202/2021

Suman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. kulvir Singh

11 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                                                                                                Complaint Case No. 202 of 2021

                                                         Date of Institution: 20.08.2021

                                                          Date of Decision:    11.12.2024              

 

Suman  W/o Sombir, R/o Village Sarangpur, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri

                                                                   ….Complainant.

                                                                Versus

1. Bank of India, Charkhi Dadri, through its Branch Manager.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 through its Authorized Signatory/Agent.

 

•  

 

          COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

Before: -      Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                        (Proceeded under Section 64 of theConsumer Protection Act, 2019).

 

Present:       Sh. Surender Singh Kadian, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Karamvir Singh Chhhikara, Advocate for OP no.1.

                   Sh. Rahul Sheoran, Advocate for OP no. 2.

 

ORDER:-

1. Suman (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) with the averments that she owns and possesses agriculture land, situated in the revenue state of village Sarangpur, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri, detail of which is given in para No. 1 of the present complaint. It is averred that the complainant got insured his Kharif 2020 Cotton crop from the CSC centre and accordingly, the OP no. 2 issued receipt/application No. 040106201041382949101 and policy no.OG-21-1207-5015-0000297. It is averred that the said crop of complainant was insured by the OP no. 2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It is averred that the crops of complainant as well as other villagers got damaged but the complainant did not get the claim. Due to negligence of OP no.1&2, the village of the complainant has been recorded as Chhapar instead of Sarangpur, due to which OP no.2 not paying the amount for the crop loss. The complainant completed all the requirement of OP no.1&2 in order to get the claim of his damaged crops, but the OP no.1&2 clearly denied paying any compensation to the complainant.  It is averred that this act of refusing to grant compensation for damaged crops of complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the complainant seeks directions against the OP to pay the claim amount along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief, to which the complainant is found entitled.
2. The OP No. 1 in its written statement averred that as per the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna answering OP debited the premium for insurance of cotton crop for an area measuring 3 acre and millet crop for an area measuring 1 acre and remitted the same to OP No. 2 mentioning the correct name and address and correct village name of the complainant.  It is further averred that if the village name is changed after submission of data to the portal of OP No. 2 due to any technical fault then answering OP cannot be made liable for that.  It is further averred that details of revenue record of insured crop also submitted by the answering OP to OP No. 2 and the record itself shows that the area of record falls in the limit of village Dohka Hariya and OP No. 2 as per policy scheme sends the message to the insured person on his mobile no. mentioning all the details such as name, village name, crop area etc. for verification and it was the duty of insured to check the message and got the correction done, if any mistake found in the message.  It is averred that the contract of insurance came into existence between the complainant and the OP No. 2 and hence, the OP No. 1 is not liable to pay any amount on account of said insurance or any other amount to complainant as there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua it.
3. Upon notice, the OP no.2 has appeared and filed their written statement. In the written statement, the OP no. 2 took some preliminary objections that the complainant had concealed the true and material facts from this Commission and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It was averred that the bank has provided the details of account no.677132110000297 in the name of Suman w/o Ranjit, details of land pertains to village Chappar. the complainant had got insured his agricultural land (2.22 hectare) vide policy No.OG-21-1207-5015-00000297 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, covering the crop season of Rabi 2019 and complainant is seeking claim for Kharif 2020. It is pertinent to mention here that as per data entered on the portal the farmer has agriculture land in village Chappar, but there is mis-match of IU. Therefore, if any mistake is done by the bank, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and the complainant is not entitled for any claim and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4.  The parties in support of their respective averments tendered in documentary evidence their respective affidavits/averments and adduced certain documents.  Reference of relevant record shall be given in this order.
5. I have heard the counsel for parties and gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the convinced view that the present complaint has no merits and the same deserves dismissal, for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

6.     We have observed from Annexure.C7 Jamabandi, the land of the complainant is situated at village Sarangpur. As per documents Annexure C6, Aadhar Card of the complainant is also shows that she is resident of village Sarangpur. Annexure C5 (Bank account statement of complainant) declares that the amount for the insured crop was deducted from the account of the complainant Thereafter, Annexure C2 letter written to OP no.1 (Bank of India) pertaining to her grievance regarding mismatch of  notified area  by the bank due to which the claim was not disbursed by the insurance company. Annexure C4, Letter to the SDM, Charkhi Dadri regarding unsettled of her claim is also certified the genuine problem of the complainant. The bank has failed to prove on record by leading any cogent or convincing evidence to prove its fact that they have sent the correct data to the insurance company. In this connection reference is invited to Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana - Revamped Operational Guidelines.  The relevant Clause 24 of the said guidelines is reproduced below: -

24. Important Conditions/Clauses applicable for Coverage of Risks:

24.1 ICs shall have received the premium for coverage either from the bank, channel partner, insurance intermediary or directly. In case of any loss in transit due to negligence by these agencies or non-remittance of premium by these agencies, the concerned bank/intermediaries shall be liable for payment of claims.

24.2 In case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/branch with respect to loanee farmers coverage which may include incorrect insured and sown acreage and survey number details, bank account details & IU details etc., the concerned bank only shall be liable for such misreporting.

As such in view of clause 24 of the operational guidelines, the bank is liable to pay compensation and it also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of bank. Hence, bank is liable to pay the claim of Rs.1,81,500/- to the complainant.

7.                In view of aforesaid discussion and findings and documents placed on record and arguments advanced by the counsel of the parties, the complaint is allowed, with the following directions:-

1. OP-1, Bank of India to pay Rs. 1,81,500/- to the alongwith interest @9% p.a. from  the date of filing of complaint i.e. 20.08.2021.
2. OP no.1, Bank of India to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) on account of mental agony, harassment caused to the complainant because of their mistake mentioning wrong name of the village.
3. OP no.1 Bank of India to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as litigation expenses.

The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy, failing which further interest @12% will be paid on all above amount mentioned in clause no.(i) to (iii) by the OP no.1 for the delayed period.

8.                If the order of this Commission is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to file execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the defaulting party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not 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 Rs. one lac or with both. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules and this order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.