BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.17 of 2018.
Date of institution: 09.01.2018.
Date of decision:09.07.2019.
- Gurbax Singh age about 62 years, S/o Sh. Faqiriya (Union Bank of India A/c No.54550505030000615).
- Nirmal Singh age about 35 years, s/o Jagir Singh (Union Bank of India A/c No.54550505030000294).
- Gurmukh Singh age about 40 years S/o Sh. Dalip Singh (Union Bank of India A/c No.545505030000658).
- Ranbeer Singh age about 37 years S/o Sh. Dalip Singh (Union Bank of India A/c No.545505030000534).
- Sharanjeet Singh age about 35 years son of Sh. Dalip Singh (Union Bank of India A/c No.545505030000649).
- Dalip Singh age about 70 years son of Sh. Chanan Singh (Union Bank of India A/c No.545505030000533).
..all residents of Village Bhatia Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.
…Complainants.
Versus
- Union Bank of India, Cheeka, Plot No.9, Kaithal Road, Cheeka, District Kaithal, Haryana through its Branch Manager.
- Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Karnal, Ist Floor Aasha Ram Market Model Town, Karnal, through its Regional Manager/Head.
- Reliance General Insurance Limited Company Branch Officer in Haryana at City Centre, Ist Floor, Opp. I.B. College near Karur Vyasya Bank, G.T.Road, Panipat (Haryana) through its Branch Manager/Incumbent Officer.
- The Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
- The Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department Krishi Bhawan, Sector-21, Panchkula.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Vikram Singh Multani, Advocate for the complainant No.1 Gurbax Singh.
Sh. S.S.Vohra, Advocate for the OPs.No.1 & 2.
Sh. C.L.Uppal, Adv. for Op No.3.
Smt. Ruchi, SA for Ops No.4 & 5.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant No.1 Gurbax Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got sanctioned his crop loan from OPs No.1 & 2 for cultivation of land on the basis of fixed interest rate as per rules and regulation under KCC scheme as mentioned below:-
Name of consumer | Total insured land | Bank account No. | Amount debit as premium in rupees | Sum assured per acre |
Gurbax
Singh | 13 acres | 545505030000615 | 2208/- | 55,000/- |
That OPs No.1,2 & 3 jointly dealing between each other for insurance of their rabbi and kharif crops in every season under the valuable consideration which was usually deducted/debited by OPs No.1 & 2 from the bank account of complainant. In the year 2017, the rabbi crops of complainant was damaged due to local calamities and he approached the Ops No.1 to 3 for claim and on their instructions, he fulfilled all the necessary obligations and submitted all the documents required alongwith loss report to OPs No.1 to 3 after verified the same from the office of OPs No.4 & 5, but the respondents started lingered on the matter day after tomorrow. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately. Ops No.1 & 2 filed the joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; estoppel; that the complainant was already having his crop loan account with the answering Op No.1-bank, so, with the consent of the complainant, requisite premium amount was deducted on 11.01.2017 by the Op No.1 bank in the shape of demand draft for insurance of Rabi Crop, 2017 of the complainant. The said Rabi crop of complainant Gurbax Singh was damaged and the answering Ops sent the required and relevant information to the Op No.3 through e-mail but the Op No.3 did not consider the claim of complainant No.1 namely Gurbax Singh and refused to release the claim amount. Thereafter, the complainant approached the answering Ops to pay back the premium amount, so, the answering Ops refunded the premium amount to the complainant by transferring the same in his account maintained with the answering Ops; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.3 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 Forum because the complainant has approached this Forum 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 Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Ops No.4 & 5 filed their joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; that the crop of complainant was not found insured as per reply of insurance company on 01.02.2018, so, the Ops No.4 & 5 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A and documents Mark-C1 to Mark-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence. Ld. counsel for the complainant No.1 tendered into additional evidence Mark-C6 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the Ops No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2, Op No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and thereafter, closed the evidence. The Ops No.1 & 2 also tendered in additional evidence Ex.R3 and closed the evidence. The Ops No.4 & 5 did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of Ops No.4 & 5 was closed vide court order dt. 27.03.2019.
It is pertinent to mention here that the present complaint was dismissed as withdrawn on behalf of complainants No.3 to 6 in view of statement of ld. counsel for the complainants No.3 to 6 vide order dt. 15.01.2019 of this Forum and the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn on behalf of complainant No.2 in view of separate statement recorded by ld. counsel for the complainants No.1 & 2 vide order dt. 03.06.2019.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
8. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, there is no dispute that the complainant No.1 Gurbax Singh got sanctioned his crop loan from OPs No.1 & 2 for cultivation of land. It is also not disputed that premium of Rs.2208/- was deducted on 11.01.2017 from the account of complainant and paid the same to the OP No.3 towards the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna scheme (hereinafter in short referred to PMFBY) as is clear from copy of account statement of complainant.
As per the complainant, in the year 2017, his rabbi crops was damaged due to local calamities and he approached the OPs for compensation under PMFBY, but the OPs did not pay his claim. The OPs No.1 & 2 mainly contended that the said Rabi crop of 2017 of complainant was damaged and the Ops No.1 & 2 sent the required and relevant information to the Op No.3 through e-mail but the Op No.3 did not consider the claim of complainant and refused to release the claim amount. The OP No.3 has contended 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.
9. From the perusal of complaint as well as other documents annexed with the complaint, it is clear that the Ops No.1 & 2 deducted the premium amount of Rs.2208/- from the account of complainant but did not submit the list of farmers having details of insured unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit and total area of insured of farmer etc. to the Op No.3. The OP No.3 further produced copy of Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and stated that its sub-Clause 2 of Clause XVII “Important Conditions/Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks”, is relevant, which reads as under:-
“In case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the covered bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting”.
In view of above circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs No.1 & 2 bank have deducted the premium amount of Rs.2208/- from the account of complainant but did not sent the list of farmers including the name of complainant No.1 Gurbax Singh to the OP No.3, so the OPs No.1 & 2 are deficient in services. Keeping in view the Operational Guidelines mentioned above, for this mis-reporting, the OPs No.1 & 2 are liable to pay the claim of the complainant namely Gurbax Singh.
10. Now the question arises that how much claim is entitled to the complainant No.1 Gurbax Singh. As per village-wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY for Rabi 2016-2017- Performa B, the claim per hectare of village Bhatian is Rs.6197.53 per hectare. One hectare is = 2.47105 acre, so Rs.6197.53/2.47=Rs.2509.12 per acre. The complainant has mentioned in his para No.2 of his complaint that his total insured land was 13 acres but on perusal of jamabandi and other record available on the file, we find that the complainant has sown the rabi cropp in 6 acre land, so the complainant is entitled for claim of 6 acre land only which comes to Rs.2509.12 x 6 acres = Rs.15054.72 paise (in round figure Rs.15055/-) and in our view, the complainant is entitled for the same.
11. Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly against the Ops No.1 & 2 and direct the OPs No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.15055/- to the complainant No.1 namely Gurbax Singh because the other complainants have already received the compensation amount and they have withdrawn the complaint against the Ops as mentioned above. We further direct the OPs No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.3300/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. for the defaulted period. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:09.07.2019.
(D.N. Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
