Haryana

StateCommission

A/143/2021

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIJENDER SINGH AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

NEETA PATHANIA

09 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA Panchkula

 

  Date of Instituion:12.07.2021

                Date of final hearing:09.03.2023

                                                 Date of pronouncement:24.03.2023

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL No.143 of 2021

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

State Bank of India, Jagsi Branch, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat (Haryana) 131319. Email:sbi.50481@sbi.co.in

                                                                                       .….Appellant

Versus

 

1. Bijender Singh son of Shri Daya Singh, resident of Village, Gangana, Tehsli Gohana, District Sonepat (Haryana) through SPA, Daya Singh son of Balwant Singh.
2. Narender Singh son of Shri Daya Singh, resident of Village, Gangana, Tehsli Gohana, District Sonepat (Haryana) through SPA, Daya Singh son of Balwant Singh.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.156-159, Second Floor, Sector-9C, Chandigarh (UT).
4. State of Haryana through Deputy Director Agriculture and farmer Welfare Department, Jind near Senior Secondary School, Jind (Haryana).       

  ....Respondents

CORAM:    Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri S.S. Pathania, counsel for the appellant.

                   Respondents No.1 & 2 through their father Shri Daya Singh.

                   None for respondent No.3.

                   Shri Navneet Kumar, Assistant Statistical Officer on behalf of respondent No.4.

                  

O R D E R

Per: Manjula, Member:

 

          The brief facts giving rise for disposal of the present case are that the land of the complainants is situated in village Siwana Mal Tehsil Safidon, District Jind measuring 40 kanals and 02 marlas. The complainant had taken a loan of Rs.3.00 lacs from OP No.1 bank on KCC account. It is submitted that the OP No.1 bank had deducted Rs.2537/- on 27.07.2016 for Kharif crop and Rs.1674.75p on 27.12.2016 for Rabi crop from complainant’s account for the said land under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yozna and sent the same to the OP No.2, insurance company Branch Sonepat, instead of Jind Branch as the land of the complainants is situated at village Siwana Mal, District Jind. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application on 12.09.2017 at C.M. window, Gohana (Sonepat) against the OP No.1 and reply thereto dated 16.10.2017 & 06.11.2017 was sent by the OPs No.1 & 2. It is further stated that as per surveyor report, the complainants have suffered loss of Rs.29,000/- in paddy crop and Rs.46,000/- in rabi crop due to inundation. It is also submitted that the OP No.3, Agriculture Department Jind, sent a list of farmers wherein names and villages were wrongly mentioned due to the mistake of OP No.1 bank to the Agriculture Department, Chandigarh and because of that the complainants have not got any compensation for which they were legally entitled. Hence, the complaint.

2.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs.The  OP Nos. 2 & 3 appeared whereas OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte.

3.      The OP No.2 filed his written version stating therein that as per the complaint, the land of complainants is situated in village Siwana Mal, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind and he has suffered loss due to the damage to the wheat and the paddy crop due to inundation whereas as per the record of OP No.2 (as provided by the bank), the complainants were insured in the area of village Gohana (Rural) (part)(32), Tehsil Gohana, Sonepat for the insured crops of wheat and paddy for the year  2017. Hence, due to the wrong record provided by the OP No.1 bank and non-intimation of the loss by the complainant, OP No.2 was not in a position to appoint a surveyor to assess the loss, if any, and the claim is not payable in absence of such intimation causing inability to survey the land/loss if any, due to the mismatch in the insured unit in accordance with the rules framed under the operational guidelines of PMFBY. As such, the OP No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency in service on his part.

4. The OP No.3 filed his separate written version and raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous, complainant is not a consumer of the OP No.3 and thus, the present complaint does not lie against him and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jind allowed the complaint against the OP No.1 vide order dated 12.02.2021.

 

6.      Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, Jind, OP No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal before the State Commission.

7.      Perusal of the record reveals that as per the revenue record (Annexure C-8), the land of complainants fall in village Siwana Mal and the amount of premium for insurance has been deducted from their bank account (Annexure C-1). It is evident that the OP No.1 bank has admitted that by mistake it has remitted the premium for the area of Gangana (Sonepat) with respect of the complainants whereas their land situated in village Siwama Mal (Jind) and the insurance company was asked to look into the matter (Annexure C-3 & Annexure C-11). In view of the above discussion, it is clear that due to the change of notified area of the crop of complainants by the OP No.1 bank, the OP No.2 insurance company was unable to indemnify the crop yield loss caused to the complainants. As per the guidelines issued under PMFBY, the OP No.2 insurance company is not at fault and not responsible to pay any claim to the complainants.

8.      In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we do not find any substance in pleadings of the appellant. The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The State Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Commission. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

9.      Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Order.

10.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal of the parties.

11.    File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.    

                                                                  

Pronounced On:24.03.2023

 

                                                                                                (Manjula)

                                                                               Member

M.S.