Haryana

Kaithal

421/19

Janak Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Hem Raj Wadhwa

30 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.421 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 10.12.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:30.09.2022.

Janak Singh son of Jot Ram, Ward No.8, Kalayat, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, near IDBI Bank Kaithal through its Branch Manager, Kaithal.
2. State Bank of Patiala now merged with The State Bank of India, Kalayat Branch through its Branch Manager.
3. The Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare 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. Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. M.R.Miglani, 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

       Janak Singh-Complainant 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 is the owner of land measuring 26 kanals 17 marla, as detail mentioned in para No.2 of the complaint and got insured the same with the respondent No.1-company under the Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) scheme and an amount of Rs.2015.53 paise has been debited from the  account of complainant bearing No.65143525422 with the respondent No.2.  It is alleged that the respondent No.3 has published pamphlet regarding insurance of kharif crops for the year 2017-18 and also told about the insurance coverage of paddy crop is Rs.71,500/- per Hectare i.e. Rs.28,600/- per acre and complainant is owner of approximately 3¼  acres of agriculture land and damage of paddy crops in the said 3¼  acres of land, the loss caused due to water logging due to flood in the fields of complainant which comes to Rs.92,500/- (i.e. Rs.28,600/- per acre x 3¼ acres).  It is further alleged that the complainant moved an application to the respondent No.1 to make payment of compensation due to loss to the paddy crops but inspite of repeated requests, the respondent No.1 has 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 as per record, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “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.  In fact, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent as his banker had not uploaded the data of complainant on National Crop Insurance Portal of Govt. of India or supplied any proposal form to the answering respondent due to the reason best known to them.  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.

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 of Rs.2015.53 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 29.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018 (Paddy).  Lateron consolidated premium of Rs.1368909.18 paise, which also includes the aforesaid premium amount of Rs.2015.53 paise was remitted to the account of respondent No.1 in their account No.0248002100026568 on 30.07.2018 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  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-C9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R8, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R9 & Annexure-R10, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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.9694.08 paise per acre.  Hence, for 3 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.29,082/- (Rs.9694.08 paise x  3 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.29,082/- 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.:30.09.2022.  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.