BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.227 of 2019.
Date of institution: 05.08.2019.
Date of decision:08.04.2022.
Jominder Singh @ Joginder Singh S/o Satwant Singh, aged 43 years, resident of Village Dussain, Tehsil Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- State Bank of India, Pundri through its Branch Manager, Pundri, near Anaj Mandi, Pundri.
- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through its General Manager, 2nd Floor, SCO No.145 to 148, Sector-9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
- Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Room No.103, Secretariat, 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. J.S.Pannu, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the respondent No.1.
Sh. C.L.Uppal, Adv. for respondent No.2.
Smt. Ruchika, SA, Reprt. for respondent No.3.
ORDER
DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT
Jominder 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 agriculture land having 11 acres land at Village Dussain, Distt. Kaithal. It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.35514032441 with the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 had insured the crop of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2016-17 with the respondent No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.2953/- in the name of ‘Crop Insurance’ from the account of complainant. It is further alleged that in Rabi Season of 2016 the complainant had sown wheat crop upon these agriculture land but due to untimely heavy rainfall, the wheat crop of complainant was damaged/ruined due to “Rainwater lodging”. The complainant reported the matter to respondent No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural field of complainant and assessed 90% damage of wheat crop. The complainant lodged the claim with the respondent No.2 but the respondent No.2 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. 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 amount of premium in the sum of Rs.6,39,029/- alongwith list of loanee farmers (Including the complainant) was paid to respondent No.2 in their account No.00600350129651 of HDFC Bank through NEFT bearing UTR No.-SBINR52017012700072177 on 27.01.2017, 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 reply raising preliminary objections that the crop of complainant was not insured under crop season, 2016 for “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” in District Kaithal of Haryana State as per record of insurance company and present complaint lacks for privity of contract which does not fall under definition of consumer disputes in absence of any contract of insurance and consideration; that as per Operational Guidelines, the bank has to mandatory submit premium to the insurance company alongwith declaration form of the farmers but declaration form of farmer having details of insured unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area of insured of farmer etc. were never supplied by concerned bank and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for mistake done by bank or complainant himself. It is settled proposition of law that contract of insurance cannot be booked unless details of insurance is submitted to insurance company. Moreover, it was the duty of bank to submit requisite details of farmer alongwith premium for the purpose of booking of insurance contract in the record of insurance company; that the present complaint is not maintainable before this commission because the complainant has approached this commission with bad intention even without approaching to grievance cell of Govt. agencies as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated 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; that the farmer did not give any intimation to the answering Respondent of damage in the crop. However, the claim arise on the basis of average yield and the average yield is observed 3148.11 Kg. per Hectare while threshold yield is 4208.4 Kg. per Hectare. Hence, the claim arises Rs.13,856/- per hectare. The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW1/B alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R15, Respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R16 to Annexure-R19, Respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A 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. Sh. J.S.Pannu, Adv. for the complainant for the complainant stated that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned agriculture land having 11 acre situated at Village Dussain, Distt. Kaithal. It has been argued that the complainant has an account No.35514032441 with the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 had insured the crop of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2016-17 with the respondent No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.2953/- in the name of ‘Crop Insurance’ from the account of complainant. It has been further argued that his wheat crop was damaged due to ‘Rainwater lodging’. It has been further argued that the collectively amount of Rs.6,39,029/- had been deposited in the account of respondent No.2 under the head of crop insurance. It has been further argued that the respondent No.2 admitting the claim of complainant and told that the total amount of Rs.6,39,029/- has been deposited as the premium of complainant as-well-as other persons without any declaration and proposal form which is against the operating guidelines of PMEBY. It has been further argued that as no declaration was shared with the respondent No.2, hence, no policy was booked for complainant.
9. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Op No.2 contended that as per Operational Guidelines, the bank has to mandatory submit premium to the insurance company alongwith declaration form of the farmers but declaration form of farmer having details of insured unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area of insured of farmer etc. were never supplied by concerned bank and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for mistake done by bank or complainant himself.
10. We have perused the Village-wise tabulation-sheet dt. 30.04.2018 Annexure-C3, from which it is clear that the yield loss in the Village Dussain was reported as Rs.13,856/- per hectare. It is clear from the documentation that respondent No.2 send letter dt. 30.08.2019 (Annexure-R7) to respondent No.1 for return of amount of Rs.6,39,029/-, so, the said letter dt. 30.08.2019 regarding initiation of correspondence for refund of premium amount after the survey report dt. 30.04.2018 of Village Dussain has no value in the eyes of law. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the Op No.1 submitted copy of order dt. 09.10.2019 titled as Kawaljit Singh Vs. OBC bearing complaint case No.153 of 2018 passed by this Commission and copy of order dt. 19.07.2019 passed by Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sukhwinder Singh bearing first appeal No.528 of 2019. The order titled as Sukhwinder Singh Vs. OBC etc. (supra) was passed by this Commission on the same footings vide which the said complaint was allowed by this Commission against the Reliance General Insurance Company-Op No.2. Aggrieved with the said order of this Commission, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. filed the appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble State Commission vide order dt. 19.07.2019 dismissed the appeal. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 rather it is Op No.2, who is deficient. It is clear from the list of farmers Annexure-C4/Annexure-R2 that the complainant got insured his wheat crops in 10.7 acre and it is also clear from the Village-wise tabulation-sheet dt. 30.04.2018 of Agriculture Department, Kaithal Annexure-C3 that the loss was occurred as Rs.13,856/- per hectare in the Village Dussain. One hectare is equal to 2.47, so, the loss comes as approximately Rs.5610/- per acre (Rs.13,856/-÷2.47) and the total loss comes to Rs.60,027/- i.e. Rs.5610/-x10.7 acre. In this way, the complainant is entitled for Rs.60,027/-.
11. Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2 to pay Rs.60,027/- to the complainant within two months from today, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 6% p.a. for the defaulted period. Hence, the present complaint is accepted with cost. The cost is assessed as Rs.5,000/- which will be paid by the respondent No.2 to the complainant. It is made clear that the respondent No.1-bank will pay the premium amount of Rs.2953/- to the respondent No.2-insurance company which was already deducted by the respondent No.1 from the account of complainant.
12. In default of compliance of this order, proceedings 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.:08.04.2022.
(Dr. Neelima Shangla)
President.
(Rajbir Singh), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
