Haryana

Kaithal

335/19

Shishpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Harikesh Khatkar

28 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.335 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 09.10.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:28.10.2022.  

Shishpal son of Bhalle Ram, resident of Village Dubbal, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. HDFC Bank, Kalayat, through its Branch Manager, District Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company through its Branch Manager, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
3. Deputy District Agriculture Officer, Kaithal.

..Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Harikesh Khatkar, Advocate, for the complainant.   

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

                Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA, Reprt. for respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Shishpal-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 agriculturist by profession and owned 11¼ acres of land in Village Dubbal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.50200022651792 with the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 had insured the crop for kharif 2018 of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.6776.70 paise on 02.07.2018 in the name of ‘Crop Insurance’ from the account of complainant.  It is further alleged that in the season of kharif 2018, the complainant planted the paddy crop  but on 23/24.09.2018 respectively due to untimely and heavy rain fall and inundation, the insured ripen paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant reported the matter to respondents but the respondents did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.  Hence, this complaint.         

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  Respondent 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.6776.70 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 02.07.2018 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, hence deficiency if any is on the part of respondent No.2.  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 paddy crop has been affected in Village Dubbal, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. 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.  In the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for paddy crop of village Dubbal, District Kaithal.  So, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents i.e. Jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari etc.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint

4.             Respondent No.3 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  On merits, it is submitted that the survey was conducted at village level randomly and report was prepared at the spot.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

5.             To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.P1 alongwith documents Anneuxre-P1 to Annexure-P6 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R4 to Annexure-R9 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of respondents.

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.6776.70 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.4561.52 paise per acre.  Hence, for 11¼ acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.51,317/- (Rs.4561.52 paise x 11¼  acre).  As per Annexure-R1, the amount of Rs.1102/- have already been paid by the insurance company to the complainant as stated by Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent No.2 which is not rebutted by the complainant.  Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.1102/- from the total compensation amount of Rs.51,317/-, remaining amount of Rs.50,215/- shall be paid by the respondent No.2-insurance company to the complainant.        

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.50,215/- 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.:28.10.2022.    

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.