Haryana

StateCommission

A/29/2021

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIKAS AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

SAURABH BHARDWAJ

23 Feb 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal No.     29 of 2021

Date of Institution:  15.02.2021

Date of Decision:    23.02.2021

 

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank), a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act No.V of 1970 having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, whereas one of its branch office amongst other places at Jind Branch, District Jind (Haryana) through its Branch Manager Srinivasa Rao Battu.

Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

1.      Vikas son of Shri Ram Pal resident of Village Dhigana, Tehsil and District Jind (Haryana).

 Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.151-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9, Chandigarh (U.T).

Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

                  

   Present:     Shri Saurabh Bhardwaj, counsel for the appellant.

                                                                 

O R D E R

 

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned for the reasons specified in the miscellaneous application.

2.      Opposite party No.2-Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) is in appeal against the order dated 06.02.2020 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind whereby complaint preferred by complainant-Vikas was partly allowed and opposite party No.2-bank held liable to indemnify the loss caused to the complainant due to the fault of the bank and accordingly, it was directed to comply with the following directions within 45 days from the date of order:-

“(i) To pay Rs.46,000/- to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order

(ii) Also to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- on account of mental harassment and hardship.

(iii) Also to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

 

          In case of default in making the aforesaid amount within stipulated period, opposite party No.2-bank was liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforementioned amount for the period of default.” 

3.      According to the complainant, he was co-owner in his agriculture land measuring 68 kanal, 11 marla situated within the revenue estate of Village Dhigana, Tehsil and District Jind. The Government of India had floated a scheme under the name and style of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana vide which the crops of the farmers who obtained loan from the bank were insured.  Opposite party No.1 was authorized/appointed to insure the crops of the farmers.  The crop of the complainant was insured by opposite party No.1 under the above said scheme and a sum of Rs.2,860/- was deducted on 27.07.2017 from the bank account of the complainant existing with opposite party No.2 in lieu of insurance of the crops of complainant.  In the year 2017, the complainant had sown paddy crop in 2.5 hectare/ 5 acres of land, which was damaged completely due to heavy water.  The complainant moved an application for inspection of the spot and to assess the loss, a survey was conducted by the Agriculture Development Officer alongwith other officials in presence of the official of opposite party No.1 and the crop of the complainant was found damaged/destroyed to the extent of 100% due to accumulation of water in those fields.  A form was filled up at the spot by the concerned official of Agriculture Department by mentioning all the facts and the official put his signature and seal.  The opposite parties were also informed about the loss of the crops but they did not make any payment due to the reason that opposite party No.2 wrongly entered the name of the complainant as Vikas son of Shri Ramphal, resident of Village Lijwana, District Jind in lieu of his correct name i.e. Vikas son of Rampal, resident of Village Dhigana, District Jind.  The complainant also met the officials of opposite parties to rectify the aforesaid error but to of no effect.  Thereafter he moved an application with the office of SDM, Jind and after that opposite party No.2 forwarded a letter dated 22.08.2018 to the opposite parties with regard to debiting the account of the complainant on account of damage of crop of the complainant but the opposite parties neither gave compensation nor replied to his complaint.  The opposite parties had assessed compensation of Rs.28,600/- per hectare on account of loss of paddy crop and the total compensation came to Rs.1,43,000/- for five acres which ought to have be given by the opposite parties to the complainant but the opposite parties did not pay the same.  The complainant also visited the office of opposite parties several times to get his remaining/correct legal claim but the official of opposite parties neither settled the claim nor listened to him.  No claim was paid by the opposite parties which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

4.      Upon notice, opposite party No.1-Insurance Company tendered reply raising preliminary objections.  On merits, it was pleaded that there was no proof of sowing of kharif crops or loss was due to inundation.  As per the complaint, the farmer had land in Village Dhigana, District Jind whereas as per the record, the complainant was insured in the notified area i.e. Village Lajwana Kalan, District Jind for the insured paddy crop.  He was insured and claim intimation was received.  A survey was conducted but due to mismatch in the notified I.U. localized claim was not payable.  Moreover, there was no short fall of yield for the said crop in the given I.U as per the data provided by the government.  As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and accordingly, dismissal of the complaint was sought. 

5.      Opposite party No.2 tendered its reply raising preliminary objections.  On merits, it was admitted that on 29.07.2017, opposite party No.2 after deducting Rs.2,860/- on account of PMFBY on 07.08.2017 vide unique transaction number ANDBN17210977332 account of Rs.3,69,541/- was remitted to opposite party No.1-Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company for providing insurance cover to agriculture crops of others which included application of Sh. Vikas. The role of opposite party No. 2 was limited to forwarding the claim to the Insurance Company, if and when the same was received at its end which opposite party No. 2 had already done.  Opposite party No.2 forwarded the claim to opposite party No.1 when the complainant submitted the claim.  There was thus no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2-bank.

6.      In order to prove his case, the complainant placed on record his affidavit Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexures C-1 to C-8.  On the other hand, opposite party No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Annexure OPW1/A of Jai Singh alongwith documents Annexures OP1/1 and OP1/3 whereas opposite party No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Annexure OPW2/A alongwith documents Annexures OP2/1 and OP2/3. 

7.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint by issuing necessary directions, as mentioned above.

8.      Learned counsel for opposite party No.2-bank has submitted that the bank had got insured crop of the complainant with opposite party No.1-Insurance Company.  The amount of compensation, if any was to be paid by opposite party No.1-Insurance Company.  As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.  Therefore the appeal be accepted, impugned order be set aside and the complaint be dismissed.

9.      Having heard learned counsel for opposite party No.2-bank, the State Commission finds that the proposal form Annexure OP1/1 was forwarded by the bank to the Insurance Company and the notified area of the complainant had been shown as Lajwanat Kalan whereas as per the revenue record, the land of the complainant was situated in Village Dhigana.  Due to change of notified area of the crop of complainant by opposite party No.2, opposite party No.1-Insurance Company was not at fault and thus not responsible to pay any claim to the complainant.  On the other hand, opposite party No.2-bank was liable to indemnify the loss caused to the complainant.

10.    In view of the above, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum.  The appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. 

11.     The statutory amount of Rs.35,000/- deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal be released in favour of the complainant-Vikas against proper receipt and identification subject to appeal/revision, if any, but in accordance with law.  

 

 

Announced 23.02.2021

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  U.K.