Haryana

Kaithal

158/20

Hoshiyar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kirpal Singh

03 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.158 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 23.06.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:03.01.2023.

Hoshiyar Singh S/o Sh. Ujagar Singh, R/o Village Kurar, Tehsil-Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. HDFC Bank, Kalayat, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No.305, Secretariat, Kaithal.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

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

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

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

                Sh. Sunil Kumar, PO Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Hoshiyar 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 and possessed land measuring  16.8 acre (134 Kanal 7 Marla), detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.50200014190205 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant for the year 2018-19 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.8511.30 paise on 16.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 23 and 24 September, 2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to respondent No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of complainant alongwith officials of respondent No.2 and assessed 75% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land but the actual crop damage loss was 90%.  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.  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.8511.30 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 16.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif, 2018 and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account No.0248002100026568 of PNB vide UTR/Transaction No.HDFCR52018081389955067 on 13.08.2018 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 HDFC Bank Kaithal) including that of present complainant were prepared/uploaded on PMFBY Portal within prescribed time/cut off date by respondent No.1 and such consolidated proposals/list of farmers/declarations were also submitted to respondent No.2 well within stipulated time.  It is further stated that as per bank record, respondent No.2 has processed and adjudicated the Kharif, 2018 claim qua crops of present complainant and accordingly, an amount of Rs.48668.39 paise was received by the respondent No.1 as compensation amount which has also been transferred in the CC account of complainant on 15.06.2019.  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 the present complaint is not maintainable as after inspection and recommendation by respondent No.3, the due amount in the sum of Rs.48,668.39 paise paid on yield basis on 18.02.2019.  It is further submitted that the complainant has not submitted application for assessing individual loss of his crops, so, nothing is due towards the answering respondent and n further claim is made out; 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.  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-A to Annexure-C and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3,  respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R4 to Annexure-R11, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R12 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             No intimation has been given by the complainant to the Agriculture Department regarding loss.  However, the premium of Rs.8511.30 paise has been deposited by the complainant with the respondent No.1-bank.  The Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1534.85 paise per acre.  Hence, for 14.3 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.21,948/- (Rs.1534.85 paise x 14.3 acre).  Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the respondent No.1—bank has stated that the amount of Rs.48,668.39 paise has already been paid to the complainant by the insurance company on 15.06.2019.  So, no claim is outstanding against the respondents.  Nothing more to be adjudicated in the present complaint.  Hence, this case is disposed of accordingly.  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.:03.01.2023.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.