Haryana

Kaithal

116/21

Mahvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Manish Ghira

19 Dec 2022

ORDER

             

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.116 of 2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 22.04.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:19.12.2022.

Mahavir Singh age about 55 years, son of Sh. Mukand Singh, resident of Village Malkheri, Tehsil Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
2. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ambala Road, Kaithal.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal, Office at Room No.305, Secretariat, Kaithal.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Manish Ghira, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. P.P.Kaushik, 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

        Mahavir Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that in the year 2018, the complainant had sown paddy crops in his land and also insured the same with the respondent No.1 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” and respondent No.2 had deducted the amounts of 781.01 paise and Rs.1339.02 paise on 16.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that an amount of Rs.421.58 paise & Rs.722.78 paise was also deducted by respondent No.2 on 27.12.2018 in lieu of said crops insurance.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in the month of September, 2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant reported the matter to the respondent No.3 and the officials of respondents No.3 in return inspected the agriculture fields of complainant and assessed 30% to 35% damage of paddy crop of 3 acres of land.  It is further alleged that the respondents have compensated only Rs.2789.65 paise which is not sufficient.  The complainant requested the respondents several times to pay the claim amount but the respondents did not redress the grievances of complainant.  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.  Respondents No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Mahal Kheri, Sub Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal, due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy Rain Fall” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme and to prove the same, no documentary proof of any kind has been annexed with the complaint; that role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institutions that are part of this scheme; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop; that apart from non-submission of claim, the complainant has also not supplied any proof for loss or whether index report of Metrological Department of India in support of claim which establishes that the alleged loss of crop had never occurred in the area.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the premium amount qua kharif 2018 crop was debited from KCC account of complainant on 16.07.2018 amounting to Rs.781.01 paise (for land of Village Dilluwali) and Rs.1339.02 paise (for land of Village Mahal Kheri/Maal Kheri) and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.2 in their account through Electronic transfer bearing UTR No.ORBCH18226024715 on 13.08.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  The respondent No.1 had already received consolidated amount on behalf of present complainant and other farmers amounting to Rs.1360198.91 paise which also includes the aforesaid amount of Rs.781.01 paise (for land of Village Dilluwali) and Rs.1339.02 paise (for land of Village Mahal Kheri/Maal Kheri)  debited from the KCC account of present complainant alongwith uploaded consolidated list of farmers/proposals/declarations containing details of each farmers including that of present complainant and data was uploaded on PMFBT Portal within prescribed time, hence deficiency if any is on the part of respondent No.2.  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 version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the answering respondent received so many applications regarding damage of crops and found that there was no crop standing in the fields as stated by the farmers, the loss was assessed randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied 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-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith document Annexure-R1, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure-R10 and respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R11 to Annexure-R14 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the respondent No.2-bank has stated that the amount of Rs.2789.85 paise has already been given to the complainant on 26.02.2019 as per Annexure-R6-statement of account.  While the dealing hand Sh. Sushil Kumar appearing on behalf of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department, Kaithal-respondent No.3 has stated that for 4 acre 1 kanal land belonging to complainant, compensation of Rs.6272.64 paise has been given per acre to the complainant.  Hence, the total amount of Rs.25,875/- (Rs.25,091/-for 4 acre+Rs.784/- for 1 kanal) have to be given to the complainant.  It is clear that the amount of Rs.2789.85 paise has already been given to the complainant.  Therefore, after deducting the amount of Rs.2789.85 paise from the total compensation amount of Rs.25,875/-, balance amount of Rs.23,085/- shall be paid by the respondent No.1-insurance company to the complainant.   

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.23,085/- to the complainant 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 complainant.        

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.:19.12.2022.

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.