Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/15/2016

Jangbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Agriculture - Opp.Party(s)

Rajender Verma

28 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                Complaint Case No. : 15 of 2016

                                                                Date of Institution    : 15.01.2016

                                                                Date of decision:      : 28.05.2024

 

Jangbir Singh son of Sh. Chanderbhan son of Sh. Jittu, R/o VPO Alakhpura, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.

...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

1. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Regional Office: Ground Floor, SCO No.64-65,Sector-8C, Madhya  Marg, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

 

2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Head Office: 13^th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14 K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 through its Deputy General Manager.

 

3. The Bhiwani Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Tosham District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

 

...Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Mahipal Singh Tanwar, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

Sh. Balbir Sharma, Advocate for OP No.3.

  

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant is having agriculture land in village Alakhpura. He got advanced some agriculture facilities from OP No.3  and the standing crops in the fields of complainant were got insured  by OP No.3 from OPs No.1 & 2 by paying premium of Rs.2810/-.  It is stated that in the years 2012, complainant cultivated 12 acres land  for Rabi Season, out of which, mustard was in 10 acres of land for sum insured Rs.1,26,000/- and Gram in 2 acres of land for sum insured of Rs.14,560/-. It is alleged that the crops of complainant was damaged due to heavy winter (pala/cold) in the area. Govt. assessed loss to the crop in the area of Tosham 50% and in the village of complainant as 52%. So, complainant approached, OP No.3 and lodged claim by submitting necessary documents but the Ops failed to send the claim amount to the complainant.  Hence, an application was filed before Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhiwani which was dismissed as withdrawn on legal flaw on 01.10.2015. Now, the complaint has been filed before this Commission seeking directions against the OPs to pay Rs.73,100/- to the complainant as insurance claim. Further, to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for harassment on account of deficiency in service as well as mental and physical harassment besides Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared through their respective counsels. OPs No.1 & 2 filed their written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint on the principle of res-judicata, cause of action, locus standi, non-joinder of necessary parties  and that the answering OP has not received any consideration from the complainant, nor entered into any contract to render services and as such, the answering OP is stranger to the petition.  On merits, it is stated that the Nodal Bank Branches submit to this OP consolidated details in the form of Declaration which specifies the name of the nodal bank, the month of loaning/submission of proposal, the date of the declaration, signature of the authorized signatory of nodal bank, the State, the year, the season, the crop, the notified area, total number of farmers, total area sown, total sum insured, premium subsidy, total premium etc.. It is submitted that as the Nodal Banks submit the declarations notified area wise and crop-wise, it is not possible to the answering OP to confirm the coverage of the individual farmer or the complainant. The OP has admitted that as per information received from OP No.3 bank, complainant was insured his 10 acres of mustard and 2 acre of Gram during the season Rabi 2011-2012 and there was no coverage for Rabi 2012-2013 as per NAIS.  However, it is admitted in para no.3 of W.S. that there was declaration received from OP Bank regarding cluster of insured crop/land having sown  mustard and gram crop during the alleged Rabi season.   It is clarified that in case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/omissions/commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACS, the concerned institutions only shall make good all such losses. In the present case, if the complainant has availed crop loan for notified crop(s) in a notified area (i.e. if he is a loanee farmer) or has made proposal for crop insurance for notified crop in notified area with the concerned bank branch (if he is a non-loanee farmer), then it was the mandate on the part of said Nodal Bank to send declaration and premium as required under NAIS. As such, the liability if any is on the concerned bank.   As such, denied for any deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

3.                 OP No.3 in its W.S. raised preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, jurisdiction and complaint barred by limitation.  On merits, it is admitted that premium of Rs.2520/- & Rs.290 was received from complainant for insurance of his crops mustard in 10 acres and gram in 2 acres  and the said premium was deposited with OPs No.1 & 2 insurance company and thus complainant is directly dealing with the OP insurance company. In the end, denied for any liability on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

4.                 Ld. counsel for complainant tendered in evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-18 and closed the evidence on 24.08.2017.

5.                 On the other side, On behalf of OPs No.1 & 2 documents Annexure-A to Annexure-Z and documents Annexure AA and Annexure AB were also filed and closed the evidence on 05.03.2019.  

6.                 No evidence was tendered on behalf of OP No.3 and closed the same vide statement dated 13.02.2020.

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

8.                 Admittedly, the OP No.3 bank received the premium amount for insurance of the alleged crops of complainant and sent the same to OPs No.1 & 2 insurance company. As per copy of Jamabandi for the year 2010-2011 (Annexure C-5), complainant is owner of the land in which alleged crop were sown.  From fard khasra girdawari (Annexure C-6), it is revealed that complainant had sown the crop during the season Rabi-2012. From document  (Annexure C-7) it emerges that complainant had sown mustard crop in 10 acres and gram crop in 2 acres  and their insured values were Rs.1,26,000/- & Rs.14,560/- respectively for which he had paid premium amount of Rs.2810/-.  As per document (Annexure C-3), there was loss to the Rabi crop 2012 to the extent of 52% in village Alakhpura.

9.                 After hearing learned counsels for the parties and going through pleading as well as evidence produced on record from both the side, we have observed that the crop of complainant in 12 acre was insured with OP insurance company for the season Rabi 2012 for an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- + 14,560/- and there was loss to the crop in the village of complainant was 52%.  As such, the complainant has occurred loss to his crop of Rs.73,091/-.  It is necessary to mention here that OP insurance company after taking the premium never returned it back to OP Bank or complainant.

10.               In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the OP insurance company is negligent and deficient in providing proper services to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get compensation of the loss occurred to his crop from OP insurance company as well as harassment and litigation charges.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OPs No.1 & 2 insurance company is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.73,091/- (Rs. Seventy three thousand ninety one) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand) as compensation on account of harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OPs No.1 & 2 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default.               If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated:28.05.2024