Haryana

Kaithal

407/19

Jai Bhagwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.C.L Sharma

31 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.407 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 04.12.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:31.10.2022.

Jai Bhagwan son of Sh. Surjan, r/o H.No.708, VPO Sirta, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, State Bank of India, Keorak, Distt. Kaithal.
2. The 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.103, 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. C.L.Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Manoj Dua, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Jai Bhagwan-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 3 acre, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.30600965044 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.6941.01 paise on 31.07.2018 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 wheat 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 90% damage of wheat crop in his agriculture land.  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 that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering respondent as the answering respondent on the authorization of the complainant is paying the amount of premium of insurance to respondent No.2.  Respondent No.2 is a separate entity and independent agency.  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 wheat crop has been affected in Village Sirta, District 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; that in fact as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Agricultural Department (Haryana Govt.), the actual yield is more than the threshold yield, hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company and the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.  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 Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R3 to Annexure-R6 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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.9815.73 paise per acre.  Hence, for 3 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.29,447/- (Rs.9815.73 paise x 3 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.29,447/- 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.  It is made clear that the respondent No.1-bank will pay the premium amount of Rs.6941.01 paise 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.:31.10.2022.

 

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.