Haryana

Kaithal

CC/112/2023

Satnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager PNB Bank etc. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Kripal Singh

04 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 112 of 2023.

                                                               Date of institution:   17.05.2023.

                                                               Date of decision:      04.04.2024.

 

Satnam Singh s/o Shri Resham Singh, aged about 40 years, r/o village Ratta Khera, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. The Manager, PNB Bank, Branch Cheeka, Karnal Road, Cheeka, District Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, HUDA, Shopping Centre, LIC Building, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department, Kaithal.

 

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Kirpal Singh, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri O.P. Gulati, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Amit Kaushik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

                   Ms. Ruchika, SA, Rep. for Opposite Party No.3.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, the complainant alleged that he is agriculturist by profession owing and possessing land 2.5 acres in village Ratta Khera, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal and also having a bank account No.00525111008009 with OP No.1 for the last many years. That OP No.1 insured his crop under the Government scheme Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (for short “PMFBY”) for the year 2018-19 with OP No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.1457.51 on 30.07.2018 for paddy crop season 2018. That in the season of 2018-19, he had sown paddy crop in his land, but due to untimely heavy rainfall in that area, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined due to rain water lodging and he instantly reported the matter to the OP No.3, who in return inspected his agricultural fields along with officials of OP No.2 and assessed the loss to the tune of 55%. That he made repeated requests to the OPs to pay the claim amount, as per PMFBY scheme, but all in vain. The above act of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint along with an application for condonation of delay, against the OPs, before this Commission. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the application for condonation of delay moved by the complainant has already been decided by this Commission at the initial stage and vide its order dated 19.05.2023 the delay in filing the present complaint has been condoned accordingly.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared before this Commission and filed their respective written statements

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement specifically submitted that, to implement the PMFBY scheme, premium amount of Rs.1457.51 was debited from the OGC/KCC account of complainant on 30.07.2018 for khariff 2018/paddy and remitted the same to OP No.2 along with premium amount of other farmers also i.e. total amount of Rs.1862136.41 in account No.0248002100026568 vide UTR No.ORBCH18226026794 on 14.08.2018.

5.                OP No.2, in its written statement raised preliminary objections regarding time barred, No coverage of alleged loss; General Exclusions; Not maintainable for want of jurisdiction; Non intimation; Non submission of proof of loss or weather report; Limited Coverage as per scheme; Privity of Contract; Impleading of Necessary Parties; Complicated facts and law of contract; Right to file Amended reply etc. It is further submitted that the complainant has not provided or placed on record copy of insurance policy and in the absence of policy particulars, OP cannot be held liable. That in the present complaint, complainant is claiming for paddy crop of village Ratta Khera, but the same is denied at the stage and reserve right to file amended written statement, if need be. However, OP No.2 has processed the claim of complainant as per terms and conditions of the PMFBY scheme. Hence, complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.

6.                OP No.3, in its written statement stated that farmer gave intimation to agriculture department and same was sent to related insurance company OIC and committee conducted the survey and submitted the report directly to insurance company and as per that report, 55% loss in 3 acres was found.

7.                To prove the case, complainants tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C10.

8.                On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Annexure R-6 to Annexure R-8. OP No.2, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure R-9 to Annexure R-10. OP No.3, in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Annexure R-11 to Annexure R-14.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainants has argued that the complainant is agriculturist by profession owing and possessing land 2.5 acres in village Ratta Khera, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal and also having a bank account with OP No.1 for the last many years. He further argued that OP No.1 insured crop of complainant under the Government scheme Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (for short “PMFBY”) for the year 2018-19 with OP No.2 and deducted an amount of Rs.1457.51 on 30.07.2018 for paddy crop season 2018. He further argued that in the season of 2018-19, the complainant had sown paddy crop in his land, but due to untimely heavy rainfall in that area, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined due to rain water lodging and the complainant instantly reported the matter to the OP No.3, who in return inspected his agricultural fields along with officials of OP No.2 and assessed the loss to the tune of 55%. He further argued that the complainant made repeated requests to the OPs to pay the claim amount, as per PMFBY scheme, but all in vain, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs.

11.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that to implement the PMFBY scheme, premium amount of Rs.1457.51 was debited from the OGC/KCC account of complainant on 30.07.2018 for khariff 2018/paddy and on 14.08.2018 remitted the same to OP No.2 along with premium amount of other farmers also i.e. total amount of Rs.1862136.41.

12.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the complainant has not provided or placed on record copy of insurance policy and in the absence of policy particulars, OP No.2 cannot be held liable. He further argued that OP No.2 has processed the claim of complainant as per terms and conditions of the PMFBY scheme. He further argued that OP No.3 Agriculture Department has not assessed the cost of cultivation in their report as per guidelines of PMFBY scheme.

13.              There is no dispute that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and having a bank account bearing account No.00525111008009, with OP No.1 bank, who deducted an amount of Rs.1457.51 on 30.07.2018, from the said account, on account of premium under ‘PMFBY’ for paddy crop of 2018 season, as is evident from copy of Passbook, produced by the complainant as Annexure C-1, on the case file.

14.              The grievance of the complainant is that due to untimely heavy rainfall, in that area, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined and on his intimation, OPs surveyed their fields and assessed 55% damage to his paddy crop vide Loss Assessment Report Annexure C-2, but despite that, the OPs failed to release the claim amount to him.

15.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has produced document Annexure R-5, vide which, premium amount of Rs.1457.51 was debited from the account of complainant on 30.07.2018 for khariff 2018/paddy under PMFBY scheme. He also produced document Annexure R-8, wherein, 0.992 hectare (2.45 acres) paddy crop of complainant Satnam Singh was insured.

16.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 has contended that OP No.2 has processed the claim of complainant as per terms and conditions of the PMFBY scheme, meaning thereby, OP No.2 is admitting that the paddy crop of complainant for the season 2018 was insured with it under PMFBY scheme. But it is pertinent to mention here that the above contention of OP No.2 has no force, because OP No.2 has not paid any single penny, to the complainant, for the loss to his paddy crop, under PMFBY scheme, till today, due to that, the complainant has left with no other option, except to knock the door of this Commission, by way of filing the present complaint, to redress his grievance. Since the paddy crop of complainant, for the season 2018 was duly insured with OP No.2, under PMFBY scheme, therefore, OP No.2 is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant, for any loss suffered to his paddy crop season 2018, under the PMFBY scheme. In the present case, crop of complainant was damaged and he demanded the claim amount, as per PMFBY scheme, from OP No.2, then OP No.2 refused to pay the same, on this flimsy ground, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OP No.2.

17.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? In Para No.1 of complaint, complainant alleged that he owned and possessed total 2.5 acres of land in village Ratta Khera, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal and his paddy crop of that area was damaged and this fact is also evident from document Annexure R-12, produced by OP No.3 Agriculture Department, wherein the Area Loss (Acre) of complainant Satnam Singh was mentioned 2.5 acres. In document Annexure R11, OP No.3 Agriculture Department has assessed the claim of complainant to the tune of Rs.10454.40 per acre. Therefore, for loss of 2.5 acres of paddy crop, complainant is entitled the compensation to the tune of Rs.26136 (Rs.10454.40 x 2.5 acres), which shall be paid by OP No.2 insurance company along with compensation amount + litigation expenses, to the complainant.

18.              Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OP No.2 insurance company and dismiss the same against OPs No.1 & 3. We direct OP No.2 to pay Rs.26136/- along with compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant, within a period of 45 days, from today, failing which, the award amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization.

19.              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 records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:04.04.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.