Haryana

Kaithal

171/19

Krishan kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard SCO - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Varun Kr Jaglan

21 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.171/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 20.06.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:21.10.2022.

Krishan Kumar (since deceased), following are the legal heirs of deceased

1. Mukesh Rani w/o Sh. Krishan Kumar
2. Shahil Kumar
3. Anish sons of Krishan Kumar
4. Nisha Devi d/o Krishan Kumar

All residents of Village Jokholi, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainants.

                        Versus

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. The Statement, 4^th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area Phase-I, Next to Hometal Hotel, Chandigarh (U.T.)-160002.
2. Punjab National Bank Jakholi, Tehsil and District Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
3. Directorate Agriculture Department, Kaithal.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Varun Kumar Jaglan, Advocate, for the complainants.   

                Sh. A.K.Khurania, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Krishan Kumar-Complainant (since deceased) has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant Krishan Kumar (since deceased) was agriculturist by profession of agriculture land measuring 68 kanals 0 marla, as detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the bank account of complainants is joint account with the respondent No.2 bearing No.0714008800021520.  It is further alleged that the respondent No.1 had insured the wheat crops of complainant Krishan Kumar (since deceased) through respondent No.2 and sum of Rs.3740.76 paise was charged as premium on 31.07.2017 and amount of Rs.3165.26 paise on 29.12.2017 from their account.  It is further alleged that the wheat crop of complainant was damaged due to “Rainfall” and some natural climatic and 8½ acres of wheat crop of the complainant suffered 40% to 50% loss.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the respondents to make payment of compensation due to loss to the wheat crops but inspite of repeated requests, the respondents have failed to make the compensation to him.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.    

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  Respondent No.1 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this commission; that the complainant never intimated/file claim with the answering respondent.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondents No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the premium amount qua kharif crop was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2017 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif, 2017 amounting to Rs.3740.76 paise and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.1 in their account No.000405074649 of ICICI Bank through NEFT bearing UTR No.PUNBH17215313892 on 03.08.2017 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Similarly, premium amount qua rabit/wheat crop was debited from KCC account of complainant on 29.12.2017 for Fasal Bima Yojna amounting to Rs.3165.26 paise and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.1 in their account No.000405074649 of ICICI Bank through NEFT bearing UTR No.PUNBH18011196727 on 11.01.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Alongwith above-said cumulative crop insurance premium amount of Rs.2107159.28 paise and Rs.1780326.62 paise of respective seasonal crops and consolidated data of different loanee farmers including that of present complainant were given to respondent No.1 before cut off date.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Respondent No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi and evasively denied all the facts contained in the complaint and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.         

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.R3 and respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R12 and thereafter, closed the evidence.  Respondent No.1 did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of respondent No.1 was closed vide court order dt. 04.10.2022. 

7.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             ­­­­Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and he has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4726.80 paise per acre.  Hence, for 8.6 acre loss, the complainants are entitled for the amount of Rs.40,650/- (Rs.4726.80 paise x  8.6 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.40,650/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted with cost.  The cost is assessed as Rs.5500/- which will be paid by the respondent No.1-insurance company to the complainants.  It is made clear that the respondent No.2-bank will pay the premium amount to the respondent No.1-insurance company which was already deducted by the respondent No.2-bank from the account of complainant, if retained by the respondent No.2 till now.                

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent No.1 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 record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:21.10.2022.  

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.