Haryana

Kaithal

258/19

Sukhwant Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.S.Pannu

28 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.258 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 22.08.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:28.10.2022.

1. Sukhwant Kaur w/d of Gulab Singh
2. Manjeet Singh S/o Gulab Singh

Both r/o Village Dussain, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.

3. Davinder Kaur w/o Harvinder Singh d/o Gulab Singh, resident of Pyord, Distt. Karnal.
4. Ramandeep Kaur w/o Roop Singh d/o Gulab Singh, resident f Satgoli Bhago Majra, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                        …Complainants.

                        Versus

1. State Bank of India, Pundri through its Branch Manager, Pundri, near Anaj Mandi Market, Pundri.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through its General Manager, 2^nd Floor, SCO No.145 to 148, Sector-9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
3. 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 complainants.   

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

                Sh. C.L.Uppal, Adv. for respondent No.2.

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

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Sukhwant Kaur and others-Complainants have 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 complainants are agriculturists by profession and owned agriculture land having 20 acre situated at Village Dussain, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainants have an account No.34097692676 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.5490/- 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-C6 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-R14, Respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R15 to Annexure-R26, Respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/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. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and he has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5543/- per acre.  Hence, for 19.89 acres, the complainants are entitled for the amount of Rs.1,10,250/- (Rs.5543/- x 19.89 acres).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.1,10,250/- to the complainants 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.  It is made clear that the respondent No.1-bank will pay the premium amount of Rs.5490/- to the respondent No.2-insurance company which was already deducted by the respondent No.1-bank from the account of complainant, if retained by the respondent No.1 till now.         

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.