Haryana

Kaithal

341/19

Murti Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Hem Raj Wadhwa

28 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.341 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 14.10.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:28.10.2022.

Murti Devi w/o Sh. Pritam Singh, Advocate, R/o Ambala Road, Radhaswami Colony, Kaithal, Biswedar of Village Agondh, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, near IDBI Bank Kaithal through its Branch Manager, Kaithal.
2. The Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Kaithal.
3. Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank, Agondh Branch through its Branch Manager.

….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. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. S.S.Vohra, Adv. for the respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

       Murti Devi-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 7 acres 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.4,000/- has been debited from the  account of complainant bearing No.81418800027706 with the respondent No.3.  It is alleged that the respondent No.2 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 7 acres of agriculture land and damage of paddy crops in the said 7 acres of land, the loss caused due to water logging due to flood in the fields of complainant which comes to Rs.1,60,160/- (i.e. Rs.28,600/- per acre x 7 acres).  It is further alleged that the respondent No.1 has deposited wrongly calculated an amount of Rs.1,02,469/- in the account of complainant but the respondent No.1 should have deposited the correct calculation @ 80% per acre which comes to an amount of Rs.1,60,160/- as they have admitted in their letter dt. 15.05.2019 to the effect that 80% compensation of complainant.  It is further alleged that despite repeated requests and demands, the respondent No.1 has not made the remaining amount of Rs.57,691/- to the 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.  Respondent No.1 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as after inspection and recommendation by respondent No.2, the due amount in the sum of Rs.1,02,469/- has already been paid to the complainant towards full and final payment of her claim; 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.  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.             Respondents No.2 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. On merits, it is stated that the officials of answering respondent gave their survey report at village level regarding the loss of paddy crops of farmers and prayed for dismissal of complaint.               

4.             Respondents No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the premium amount of Rs.3941.13 paise was remitted to the respondent No.1 on 31.07.2018; that the respondent No.1 released the claim amount of Rs.1,02,469/- to the complainant which was deposited in Saving Bank Account No.81418800027706 of the complainant on 09.05.2019.  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.

5.             To prove her case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith document Annexure-R1, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure-R9, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.R1 alongwith documents Annexure-A1 to Annexure-A3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

8.             ­­­­Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the respondent No.1-Insurance Company has stated that as per document Annexure-R4, Rs.1,02,469/- have been paid to the complainant.  Regarding this, one affidavit Ex.RW1/A is also placed on the file which has been perused by us.  He has stated that nothing is due against the respondents as complainant has been given full and final payment of her claim.  Nothing more to be adjudicated in the present complaint.  As no claim is outstanding against the respondents, hence, this case is disposed of accordingly.  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.:28.10.2022.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.