Haryana

Kaithal

162/20

Jeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of Patiala(SBI) - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kirpal Singh

04 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.162 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 23.06.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:04.01.2023.

Jeet Singh S/o Pala Ram s/o Sh. Bharthu, r/o House No.870, Sector-18, HUDA, Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Manager, State Bank of Patiala now State Bank of India, Kalayat, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.
2. 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.305, 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. Kirpal Singh, Advocate for the complainant.   

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

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

                Sh. Sunil Kumar, P.O. Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Jeet 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 and possessed 5.1 acre (40 kanal 19 marla), detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.65134997485 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant for the year 2018-19 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.2887.87 paise on 29.07.2018 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 paddy 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 80% damage of paddy 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 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.2887.87 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 29.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif-2018.  Lateron consolidated premium amount of Rs.1368909.18 paise, which also includes the aforesaid premium of Rs.2887.87 paise debited from the KCC account of present complainant, was remitted was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account No.0248002100026568 on 30.07.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  It was the duty of respondent No.2-insurance company to compulsorily verify and to reconcile the data uploaded by the bank and to take necessary information and action regarding insurance policy of farmers through National Crop Insurance Portal within stipulated date/cut off date and in case of any deficiency/mismatch same would have to be reported to concerned bank branch/State.  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 averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Kalayat, 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 the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in the absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim.  In the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for paddy crop of Village Kalayat, District Kaithal.  In fact no such land situated at Village Kalayat is insured with the answering respondent.  Moreover, as per NCI Portal Land of Village Kheri Lamba related to one Jeet Singh S/o Pala Ram is insured and as per yield data of Village Kheri Lamba provided by Govt., actual yield is less than the threshold yield.  So, the complainant was entitled for yield loss amounting to Rs.15,348/- and the same was paid to his banker vide UTR No.N112190226644689 dt. 05.04.2019 total amounting to Rs.29,25,034/- as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  Now, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed under yield based claim.  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 Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R9, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R10 to Annexure-R13 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

7.             We have heard the learned Counsel for 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.15,348.37 paise has already been given to the complainant 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.9694.08 paise per acre.  Hence, for 5.1 loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.49,440/- (Rs.9694.08 paise x 5.1 acre loss).  It is clear that the amount of Rs.15,348.37 paise has already been paid to the complainant.  Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.15,348.37 paise from the total compensation amount of Rs.49,440/-, remaining amount of Rs.34,092/- 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.34,092/- 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.  In the present case, respondent No.1-bank has given wrong name of the area in which land was under survey for the damage of crops.  The name of the area is actually Kalayat while negligently, the officials of bank-respondent No.1 have given wrong name of the area to be Kheri Lamba.  So, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank-respondent No.1 which shall be paid to the complainant.  The name of village be corrected in the record. 

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents 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.:04.01.2023.

 

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.