State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank vs Rajinder Singh on 1 December, 2022
FIRST APPEAL NO.325 OF 2022 01.12.2022
SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS. RAJINDER SINGH & ORS.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 19.07.2022
Date of final hearing: 01.12.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 01.12.2022
FIRST APPEAL NO.325 OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF
Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Morthali, Kurukshetra through its Branch
Manager.
....Appellant/Opposite Party No.3
Versus
1. Rajinder Singh son of Shri Baldev Singh son of Shri Wadhawa
Singh, resident of Village Saina Saidan, Tehsil Pehowa, District
Kurukshetra.
....Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, SCO
No.147-148, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009 through
Area Manager, Govt. Business North.
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Pipli Kurukshetra
Road, near Pooja School, Pipli through its Branch Manager.
4. Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture and Farmer's Welfare,
Government of Haryana Kurukshetra.
....Respondents No.2 to 4/Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 4
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN, PRESIDENT
Present: Shri Tarun Dhingra, counsel for the appellant.
PER: T.P.S. MANN, J.
ORDER
1. Delay in filing of the appeal as mentioned in the miscellaneous application is condoned.
DISMISSED Page 1 of 7
FIRST APPEAL NO.325 OF 2022 01.12.2022 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS. RAJINDER SINGH & ORS.
2. Opposite party No.3-Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Morthali, Kurukshetra has filed the present appeal through its Branch Manager for challenging the order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra, whereby complaint preferred by complainant Rajinder Singh was allowed against opposite party No.3 (appellant herein) and dismissed against opposite parties No.1, 2 and 4. Opposite party No.3 was directed to make the payment of Rs.92,527/- to the complainant. Opposite party No.3 was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. While filing the complaint, the complainant alleged that he was resident of Village Saina Saidan and an agriculturist by profession having an account No.81368800027713 with opposite party No.3. He is having 7 acres of land at Village Zulmat, Tehsil Pehowa, Distt. Kurukshetra where he had sown paddy crop in his above mentioned land and got insurance cover under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) from opposite parties No.1 and 2 through opposite party No.3. The premium for the crop of Kharif 2016 was paid by the complainant to opposite parties No.1 and 2. He also incurred a sum of Rs.10,000/- in sowing the paddy crop. There was heavy rain during the period of August, 2016 to September, 2016 and the paddy crop of the complainant was destroyed in the said rains. In DISMISSED Page 2 of 7 FIRST APPEAL NO.325 OF 2022 01.12.2022 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS. RAJINDER SINGH & ORS. the month of September, 2016, opposite party No.3 informed Deputy Director Agriculture Kurukshetra regarding the loss of crop and a team consisting of Block Development Officer, Pehowa along with coordinator of opposite parties No.1 and 2 visited the fields of the complainant and reported that there was 100% loss of the crop sown by the complainant in the land measuring 7 acres due to storage of water. At the time of visit of the team, there was water logging at the spot. Videography and photographs were taken by the representatives of opposite parties No.1 and 2. Thereafter, the complainant visited the opposite parties No.1 to 3 several times and requested to award the compensation but nothing was done. However, a list was supplied by the bank, in which it was mentioned that loss of paddy crops due to heavy rains had not been intimated to the insurance company well in time. However, no compensation was paid by the opposite parties to the complainant, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.
4. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1, 3 and 4 appeared and filed their respective written versions whereas opposite party No.2 failed to appear before the District Consumer Commission and was proceeded against ex parte.
5. Opposite party No.1 in its written version raised preliminary objections regarding coverage of farmers; compulsory component; voluntary component; coverage of crops; coverage of risks and exclusions; average yield estimation status; non maintainable for DISMISSED Page 3 of 7 FIRST APPEAL NO.325 OF 2022 01.12.2022 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS. RAJINDER SINGH & ORS. want of territorial jurisdiction; limited coverage as per scheme; yield based claims decided by Government; privity of contract; impleading of necessary parties and complicated facts and law of contract. The role of insurance company was only to pay the claim in accordance with scheme of PMFBY and thus insurance company could not be held liable for any mistake committed by either the complainant himself or bank of the complainant. In the present case, name of insured village was Saina Saidan but complainant was claiming for village Zulmat, which had never been insured with the insurance company. Therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
6. Opposite party No.3 in its written statement raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability and cause of action. It was also submitted that the matter regarding loss of crops was matter of record but it was stated that opposite party No.3 had no fault and role in the present complaint. Hence, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
7. Opposite party No.4 pleaded that the farmer did not give any intimation in DDA Office Kurukshetra during Kharif 2016. Hence, claim arose during Kharif 2016 on the basis of average yield because average yield 1879.22 was less than threshold yield 3269.88 and so claim arose at Rs.32,649/- per hectare. The claim of the farmer was due to wrong bank data as opposite party No.3 sent the farmer's village name Saina Saidan instead of Zulmat and thus the bank was responsible to pay the claim.
DISMISSED Page 4 of 7
FIRST APPEAL NO.325 OF 2022 01.12.2022 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS. RAJINDER SINGH & ORS.
8. In support of his case, the complainant tendered his affidavit Exhibit CW1/A and documents Exhibit C-1 to Exhibit C-5. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit Exhibit RW1/A and documents Exhibit R-1 to Exhibit R-6. Opposite party No.3 failed to lead any evidence whereas opposite party No.4 tendered affidavit Exhibit RW4/A along with document Exhibit R-1.
9. As mentioned above, the complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay the aforementioned amounts to the complainant.
10. Having heard counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that though the complainant belonged to Village Saina Saidan and holding a KCC account with opposite party No.3 but there was loss of crop to some extent in Village Zulmat, as a result of which, the complaint was lodged with concerned authorities. The complainant had sown paddy crop in kharif 2016-17 in his 7 acres of land situated at Village Zulmat, Tehsil Pehowa, Distt. Kurukshetra and submitted his loss claim for his land situated in Village Zulmat. In the declaration form, opposite party No.3 mentioned the name of village of the complainant as Saina Saidan. The complainant on the one hand and opposite party No.3-bank on the other were wrong in mentioning the name of the village of the complainant. That would shift the liability upon the bank to pay compensation amount. It was the primary duty of opposite party No.3 to upload the data of farmers concerned on the government portal regarding PMFBY. Thus, it DISMISSED Page 5 of 7 FIRST APPEAL NO.325 OF 2022 01.12.2022 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS. RAJINDER SINGH & ORS. stands proved that the complainant suffered loss to his land situated at Village Zulmat but he was deprived from getting due compensation from the insurance company due to wrong declaration submitted by opposite party No.3-bank to opposite parties No.1 and 2, which amounted to an act of grave deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3.
11. In view of the above, opposite party No.3-bank had wrongly reported the name of village of the complainant to opposite party No.2 as Saina Saidan instead of Zulmat. Due to misreporting/mistake in uploading the wrong data of the complainant on the government portal of PMFBY, opposite party No.3 was liable to pay the claim.
12. As regards the quantum of indemnification, the complainant had pleaded that he had sown paddy crop during Kharif 2016-17 in 7 acres of his land, which fact is reflected in the jamabandies for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The threshold yield per hectare of Village Zulmat (village of complainant) was Rs.3,269.88 per kilogram and thus claimed amount was Rs.32,649/- per hectare. As per record, the complainant had sown paddy crop in 7 acres of land. Therefore, the complainant was entitled to receive the total amount of Rs.92,527/- from opposite party No.3 for the loss suffered by him in 7 acres of land.
13. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed.
DISMISSED Page 6 of 7
FIRST APPEAL NO.325 OF 2022 01.12.2022 SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK VS. RAJINDER SINGH & ORS.
14. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
15. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal be disbursed in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification but in accordance with rules subject to appeal/revision, if any.
16. A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
17. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.
(T.P.S. MANN) PRESIDENT Pronounced On: 01.12.2022 DR DISMISSED Page 7 of 7