1

Sunita Vs. SBI GIC Ltd. & Ors.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 534 of 2020
Date of Institution : 02.11.2020
Date of Decision : 24.01.2024

Sunita w/o Sh. Jagbir Singh, R/o Village Sirsa Kheri, Tehsil Julana, District Jind.
.…Complainant
Versus
1. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., 1st Floor, SCO-149, Red Square
Market, CUE-I, Near to State Bank of India, Mandi Branch, Hisar-125001,
Head Office – “Natraj” 301, Junction of Western Express Highway and
Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400069 through its Manager.
2. Union Bank of India, Jagat Building, Rani Talab, Jind, Haryana-126102
through its Branch Manger.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture Jind, NH-71, Roop Nagar, Jind Haryana-
126102.
……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer

Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM: SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

SH. G.D. GOYAL, MEMBER.

Present: Sh. Sunil Kumar, Adv. Counsel for complainant.

Sh. P.K. Batra, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Surender Redhu, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Sh. Navneet Kumar, A.S.O. O/o DDA, Jind on behalf of OP No.3.
ORDER:-

Per Sh. G.D. Goyal, Member:-

Shorn off unnecessary details, brief facts giving rise to the present

complaint are that the complainant is a farmer and co-sharer in total agriculture land

measuring 550 Kanals 7 marla situated within the revenue estate of Village Sirsa
 2
Sunita Vs. SBI GIC Ltd. & Ors.

Kheri, Tehsil Julana District Jind vide Jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 and she

planted Paddy crop in 3 Acres which was duly insured as Kharif-2018 crop with OP

No.1 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (in short PMFBY) and for this

purpose, a sum of Rs.1661.10Ps was deducted as premium on 27.07.2018 from her

loan account No.644205030000521 maintained with OP No.2-Bank. It is stated that

due to heavy rain/flood, Paddy crop of complainant suffered loss and intimation

regarding the same was given by the complainant to OPs No. 1 & 3 on 26.09.2018

whereupon a survey was conducted on 30.10.2018 by Committee comprising of

Block Agriculture Officer in the presence of representative of OP No.1-Insurance

Company who assessed the losses of Paddy crop to the extent of 70%. Complainant

has further submitted that she applied for claim of Paddy crop damaged to the OPs

but OPs did not pay any heed. Complainant has further submitted that OPs also

failed to comply the conditions of Haryana Government Agriculture & Farmers

Welfare Department notification No.941-Agri-II(1)-2018/4332 dated 30.03.2018

wherein Clause 19 (XXI) (b) provides the insurance company is bound to appoint

loss assessor within 48 hours of reporting of localized risk (c) the insurance

company shall complete the loss assessment process within next 10 days and (d)

shall settle the claim in the next 15 days failing which Rs.10,000/- penalty will be

imposed per case in addition to the claim amount. As such, complainant has

submitted that the act & conduct of OPs by not releasing claim of the insured crop

to the complainant for his Paddy crop loss amounts to deficiency in service. Hence,
 3
Sunita Vs. SBI GIC Ltd. & Ors.

the present compliant has been preferred by complainant seeking relief of

Rs.1,54,350/- towards crop loss alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date

of filing the claim till realization and Rs.1,00,000/- for mental pain and agonies and

Rs.10,000/- as penalty besides Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses as mentioned in

prayer para of the complaint.

2. In pursuance to notice of complaint, Ops No.1 & 2 appeared

through counsels whereas OP No. 3 appeared through authorized representative and

tendered their replies separately.

OP No.1 in its reply raised preliminary objections that the

complaint is frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and there is no deficiency in

service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering OP. On merits, it has been

submitted that as per record of OP insurance company, Kharif-2018 paddy crop of

complainant was insured with the answering OP bearing Policy No. 202001-0000-

00 under PMFBY and OP-Insurance Company has also received survey report

regarding loss of Paddy crop as per the PMFBY Guidelines and hence, the

answering OP assessed the loss of the insured Paddy crop to the tune of

Rs.24,617.50Ps as localized manner (Cost of Input basis) which was disbursed to

the complainant vide UTR No.SBINR12019042900000409 dt. 26.04.2019 in her

bank account maintained with OP No.2-Bank. As such, there is no deficiency in

service on the part of answering OP. Hence, the request of complainant seeking
 4
Sunita Vs. SBI GIC Ltd. & Ors.

compensation from the answering OP is not justified and prayed for dismissal of

complaint with costs qua OP No.1-Insurance Company.

OP No.2-Bank in its reply raised preliminary objections that the

complaint is not maintainable being false & frivolous; that the complainant has no

cause of action & locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is stated

that there is a loan account of complainant with OP No.2 an amount of

Rs.1661.10Ps was deducted on 27.07.2018 from her bank account and remitted to

OP-Insurance Company. OP-Bank has further stated that crop was insured by OP

No.1 and compensation, if any, is also to be paid by the OP No.1-Insurance

Company. As such, OP No.2-Bank has submitted that there is no deficiency in

service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs qua OP No.2-

Bank.

OP No.3 tendered its reply raising preliminary objections that the

complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed with malafide intention just to

harass the answering OP and the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder

of necessary parties. On merits, it is denied that complainant is entitled to get any

compensation from OP No.3 since complainant is not a consumer of OP No. 3 and

thus the present complaint does not lie against the answering OP. Rest of the

material contents of complaint have also been denied and prayed for dismissal of

complaint with costs qua OP No.3.

 5
Sunita Vs. SBI GIC Ltd. & Ors.

3. To prove the contention of complainant, learned counsel for

complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A

alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-8 into the evidence of complainant

and closed the same. On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 has placed on

record affidavit of Sh. Nishant Gera, Manager, Consumer Litigation, SBI General

Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi as Annexure OPW1/A alongwith documents

as Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/5 into the evidence of OP No.1 and closed the same

whereas learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered only one document as Annexure

OP2/1 into the evidence of OP No.2 and closed the same. Whereas, Sh. Navneet

Kumar, A.S.O. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of OP No.3 and

tendered his own affidavit as Annexure OPW3/A in evidence of OP No.3 and

closed the same.

4. We have heard learned counsels for the complainant, OPs No.1

& 2 and authorized representative of OP No.3 and evaluated the documents placed

on record by all the parties to complaint.

Learned counsel for complainant has argued that due to heavy

rains, Paddy crop of complainant got flooded with water and damaged 3 acres to the

extent of 70% as per Loss Assessment Report (Annexure C-4) duly assessed by a

committee comprising of Block Agriculture Officer in the presence of

representative of OP No.1-Insurance Company constituted as per PMFBY

Guidelines, but OP No.1-Insurance Company failed to release any claim amount to

 6
Sunita Vs. SBI GIC Ltd. & Ors.

complainant though the insurance premium of Rs.1661.10Ps has been received by

OP-Insurance Company from OP No.2-Bank on 27.07.2018 as clear from the

contents of Copy of Pass Book (Annexure C-3) issued by OP-Bank. Counsel for

complainant further contended that after collecting insurance premium from the

account of the complainant, none of the OPs No.1 & 2 bothered to provide copy of

insurance policy to the complainant and the said act & conduct of OPs amounts to

deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as harassment to the

complainant.

Learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that as per survey report

regarding assessment of loss as per PMFBY guidelines, OP-Insurance Company has

already assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.24,617.50Ps as localized manner and the

same have been disbursed to the complainant in her bank account maintained by her

with OP No. 2-Bank vide UTR No. SBINR12019042900000409 dt. 26.04.2019. As

such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of

complaint with costs qua OP No.1.

On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2-Bank argued

that crop of complainant was insured with OP No.1 and the policy had been issued

by it and compensation, if any, was also to be paid by the OP No.1-Insurance

Company. The OP bank has no knowledge about the damage of the crop of the

complainant as mentioned in the complaint. As such, there is no deficiency in

service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP No.2-Bank.
 7
Sunita Vs. SBI GIC Ltd. & Ors.

Authorized Representative of OP No.3 argued that the OP No.3

has no concern with the insurance of the crop of the complainant and payment of

compensation, if any, on account of damage to the crops of the complainant is to be

paid by OP No.1-Insurance Company.

5. After hearing rival contentions of the parties and going through

the Copy of Pass Book (Annexure C-3) read with Transaction Inquiry (Annexure

OP2/1) issued by OP No.1-Bank, it emerges that the premium of Rs.1661.10Ps for

insurance coverage of Kharif-2018 crops of complainant was deducted by OP No.2-

Bank on 27.07.2018 and remitted to OP No.1-Insurance Company. Further, on

perusal of Loss Assessment Report (Annexure C-4) damage to Paddy crop of

complainant was to the extent of 70%. To prove ownership with regard to

agricultural lands in question, complainant has placed on record, copy of Jamabandi

(Annexure C-2) wherefrom it is established that complainant is owner of 2.85 Acres

or say 1.1425 Hectare agricultural land. As per notification dated 30.03.2018 issued

by Haryana Government, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department (marked as

Annexure ‘X’ on the Court file after taking Judicial Notice of the Govt.

Notification), the rate of sum insured for the kharif Paddy crop was Rs.73,500/- per

Hectare during the Khariff-2018. Therefore, calculating the actual loss to the paddy

crop of complainant in 2.85 Acres or say 1.1425 Hectare comes to Rs.58,782/-. As

Rs.24,617.50Ps or say Rs.24,618/- has already been disbursed by OP-Insurance

Company to complainant as sworned by OP-Insurance Company in its affidavit

 8
Sunita Vs. SBI GIC Ltd. & Ors.

(Annexure OPW1/A). So now the complainant is entitled to receive a balance

amount of Rs.34,164/- (Rs.58,782/- (-) (Rs.24,618/-) from OP No.2-Insurance

Company which has been wrongly withheld by OP No. 2

Besides the above, it is an admitted fact on record that no any

copy of insurance policy w.r.t. Paddy crop of the complainant has been provided to

complainant by OP No.1-Insurance Company after collecting premium from the

account of complainant through OP No.2-Bank which is not only a violation of

IRDA Regulations rather amounts to admittedly deficiency in service on the part of

OP No.1-Insurance Company and thus, OP No.1 is held liable to compensate the

complainant on this count also.

Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that OP No.1-

Insurance Company is deficient in providing proper services to the complainant and

therefore, the present complaint is hereby allowed against OP No.1 whereas

dismissed against OPs No.2 & 3 with a direction to OP No.1-Insurance Company to

comply with the following directions within 45 days from the date of

communication of this order:-

(i) To pay Rs.34,164/- (Rs. Thirty Four

Thousand One Hundred Sixty Four Only)
to complainant alongwith simple interest
@ 9% per annum from the date of
institution of complaint to till date.
(ii) And to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five
Thousand Only) to complainant on
 9
Sunita Vs. SBI GIC Ltd. & Ors.

account of mental agony and physical

harassment.
(iii) Also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five
Thousand Only) to complainant on
account of litigation expenses including
the counsel fee etc.

Further the award in question/directions issued above must be

complied with by the OP No.1-Insurance Company within the stipulated period

failing which all the awarded amounts mentioned at (i) to (iii) above shall further

attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. Copy of this

order be supplied to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be consigned to the

records, after due compliance.

Announced on:24.01.2024. (A.K. SARDANA)

PRESIDENT

(G.D. GOYAL)
MEMBER
Vikas,
Stenographer.