Haryana

Kaithal

209/20

Ishwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.H.S Nain

04 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.209/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 16.07.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:04.09.2023.

1. Ishwar Singh son of Chanda Singh aged 46 years.
2. Suman Devi wife of Ishwar Singh, both residents of Village Sakra, Tehsil Dhand, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainants.

                        Versus

1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager, Kaithal.
2. Oriental Bank of Commerce through Manager at Nigdhu, Tehsil Nilokheri, Distt. Karnal.
3. Deputy Director Agricultural Department, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.   

Present:     Sh. H.S.Nain, Advocate, for the complainants.   

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                Defence of OP No.2 struck off.

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, G.P. for the OP No.3.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

        Ishwar Singh etc.-Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant No.1 is owner in possession of land measuring 14 Kanals 2 Marla and complainant No.2 is owner in possession of land measuring 2 Kanals 7 Marla situated in Village Sangroli, as detail mentioned in para No.1 of complaint.  The complainants are bank account holders bearing No.15015115004002 with the OP No.2.  The crops of complainants were insured by OP No.1 under Prime Minister Crops Insurance Policy and the premium amount of the insured crops was deducted from the aforesaid bank account by OP No.2.  The complainants had grown paddy crop in the land.  The paddy crops of complainants, due to inundation, were damaged in the year 2018.  The survey of the damaged crops was done and 18 Kls. of paddy crops of complainants was found damaged.  The complainants requested the OPs to pay the compensation amount of damaged paddy crops, but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission.  OP No.1 contested the complaint by filing written version mentioning therein that in the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for loss of paddy crops due to inundation and as per data of Village Sangroli provided by Govt., the yield loss suffered by the complainant has already been paid in the sum of Rs.14,433/- on 19.02.2019 in the account of complainant through his banker i.e. OP No.2; 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 and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             OP No.2 did not file the written statement despite availing several opportunities, so, the defence of OP No.2 was struck off vide order dt. 17.05.2022 passed by this Commission.

5.             OP 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 fields of complainant as-well-as other farmers were inspected by the officials of answering OP randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

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

7.             On the other hand, the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and thereafter, closed the evidence. OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

9.             Ld. counsel for the complainants has argued that the complainant No.1 is owner in possession of land measuring 14 Kanals 2 Marla and complainant No.2 is owner in possession of land measuring 2 Kanals 7 Marla situated in Village Sangroli.  The complainants are bank account holders bearing No.15015115004002 with the OP No.2.  It is further argued that the crops of complainants were insured by OP No.1 under Prime Minister Crops Insurance Policy and the premium amount of the insured crops was deducted from the aforesaid bank account by OP No.2.  The complainants had grown paddy crop in the land.  The paddy crops of complainants, due to inundation, were damaged in the year 2018.  The survey of the damaged crops was done and 18 Kls. of paddy crops of complainants was found damaged.  It is further argued that the complainants requested the OPs to pay the compensation amount of damaged paddy crops, but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that in the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for loss of paddy crops due to inundation and as per data of Village Sangroli provided by Govt., the yield loss suffered by the complainant has already been paid in the sum of Rs.14,433/- on 19.02.2019 in the account of complainant through his banker i.e. OP No.2

11.            Ld. G.P. for the OP No.3 argued that the claim does not arise because average yield is greater than threshold yield.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.  He has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT at the time of arguments, which are Mark-A and Mark-B on the file.      

12.            In the present case, the complainants have occurred loss in 16 Kanal 9 Marla.  So far the liability is concerned, if there was any discrepancy in the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) etc. of the farmers concerned, then it was required for the OP No.1 insurance company to refund back the said amount, within two months of cutoff date to the OP No.2 bank, but nothing has been done on the part of OP No.1 and this Commission rely upon in this regard on “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018” and its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii is relevant, which reads as under:-

“xxii) The Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the Insurance Company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim”.  

13.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was the required for OP No.1 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmers concerned to OP No.2 bank after pointing out any discrepancy on its end, within the period of cut off date of two months, but in the case in hand, OP No.1 had neither raised any objection within the period of cutoff date of two months nor intimated to OP No.2 bank regarding any discrepancy in this regard and kept the premium amount with it, and now at the time when crops of complainant was destroyed and he is demanding the claim amount, as per policy from it, then OP No.1 refused to pay the same on this flimsy ground, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. As such, the OP No.1 insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his crop.

14.            So far as the question of how much land was insured is concerned.  It is clear from the pleadings that Ishwar Singh-complainant No.1 is owner in possession of land measuring 14 Kanal 2 Marla and Suman Devi wife of Ishwar Singh-complainant No.2 is owner in possession of land measuring 2 Kanal 7 Marla and in this way, both the complainants are owner in possession of 16 Kanal 9 Marla.  It is pertinent to mention here that as per jamabandi-Annexure-C1, the land is joint in the name of both the complainants and as per statement of account-Annexure-C2, it is clear that both the complainants are having joint account from which the premium amount was deducted by the OP No.2-bank.  So, both the complainants are entitled for compensation jointly.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9504/- per acre as per Annexure-Mark-A & Mark-B.  Hence, for 16 Kanal 9 Marla loss, both the complainants are entitled for total loss amounting to Rs.19,543/- (Rs.19,008/- for 16 kanal+Rs.535/- for 9 marla loss) . 

15.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the OP No.1-insurance company is directed to pay the amount of Rs.19,543/- after deducting the amount of Rs.14,433/- which they have already paid to the complainants on 19.02.2019 which becomes the balance amount of Rs.5110/- and the same amount shall be given to both the complainants alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization which shall be given by OP No.1-insurance company.  There is no order as to costs.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against OP No.1-insurance company and dismissed against Ops No.2 & 3.     

16.            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.:04.09.2023.

 

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.