Haryana

Kaithal

36/20

Shamsher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.P Jaglan

09 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.36/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 17.01.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:09.11.2022.

Shamsher Singh aged about 62 years son of Sh. Diwan Singh r/o Village Bhani Majra, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

…Complainant.

                        Versus

1. State Bank of India, Kaithal near Army Canteen, Jind Road, Kaithal through its Manager, Distt. Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company, Dhand Road, Kaithal, through its Manager.

….Respondents.

3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department, Kaithal Office at Secretariat, Kaithal.

 

..Performa Respondent.

        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.P.Jaglan, Advocate, for the complainant.   

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

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

                Ms. Ruchika, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Shamsher 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 situated at Village Bhani Majra, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.65143578984 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the paddy crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.4017/- on 23.07.2018 and Rs.2168/- on 07.12.2018 respectively as insurance premium amount from the account of complainant.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in the month of October, 2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant reported the matter to the respondent No.3 as-well-as respondents No.1 & 2 also and the officials of respondents No.3 in return inspected the agriculture fields of complainant and assessed 60% to 65% damage of paddy crop of 6½ acres of complainant.  However, only a sum of Rs.11,172/- was deposited by the respondent No.1 on 31.05.2019 in the above-said account of complainant.  The complainant has suffered a loss of approximately Rs.40,000/- per acre of Kharif, 2018.  The complainant requested the Ops to pay the said 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.4017/- qua kharif 2018 crop was debited from KCC account of complainant on 23.07.2018.  Lateron, consolidated premium of Rs.35,06,550/-, which also includes the aforesaid premium amount of Rs.4017/- was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account No.0248002100026568 on 31.07.2018 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 SBI Main Branch, 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 submitted to respondent No.2, 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 Bhani Majra, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy 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.  However, it is made clear that the insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers.  If any mistake is done by bank of complainant or other institution, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that till date no intimation has been received by answering respondent regarding loss of alleged crop.  The other 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 loss was assessed 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 affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.R3, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R7 and respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R8 & Annexure-R9. 

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

8.             Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the respondent No.1-bank has stated that the amount of Rs.11,172/- has already been given to the complainant as per entry dated 31.05.2019 in the bank as per Annexure-R6-statement of account which shall be deducted from the main amount of compensation.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1655.036 paise per acre.  Hence, for 6.743 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.11,162/- (Rs.1655.036 paise x  6.743 acre).  It is clear that the amount of Rs.11,172/- has already been paid to the complainant.  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.:09.11.2022.

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.