Haryana

Ambala

CC/183/2019

Malkit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director of Agriculture & welfare - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA

                                                                      Complaint case no.         : 183of 2019

                                                          Date of Institution           :   27.05.2019

                                                          Date of decision     : 08.03.2021.

 

Malkit Singh S/oSant Singh, Resident of Village-Nadyali, PO-MatheriSekhan, Tehsil Ambala City, District Ambala (Haryana).

……. Complainant.

 

1.  Director of Agriculture & Welfare of KISHAN Department, Sector-21, Panchkula (Haryana), (Through its Director)

2.  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd, 2^nd Floor, SCO-156-159, Sector-9C, Chandigarh (Through its G SM.)

3.  Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Humayunpur Branch, Ambala-Hissar Road, NearMatheriShekhan Bus Stand, Distt-Ambala-134003 (Through its Branch Manager).

4.  Deputy Director, Agriculture, Ambala (Haryana) (Through its Director).

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Ms. NeenaSandhu,  President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member. 

                            

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   ShriKulbirSingh, Authorized Representative for OPs No.1                & 4.

                   ShriR.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

ShriDalbir Singh, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.

 

Order:        Smt.NeenaSandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To credit the claim amount in the account of the complainant, for the loss of crop for the Kharif Season 2016, under the PMFBY scheme along with interest @ 18%.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation, mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigations expenses. 
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’bleCommission may deem

3608.  

 

Brief facts of the case are that complainant is maintaining a Agriculture loan account bearing No.560381000624415 with the OP No.3, since 2015. On 30.07.2016,under the PradhanMantriFasalBimaYojana (hereinafter referred to as PMFBY) a premium of Rs.1250/- was debited by the OP No.3 to OP No.2 from his account, for the insurance of paddy crop sown in the land of the complainant, situated under notified area OGARA (122). The said crop got damaged and complainant time and again requested the OPs to pay the claim amount, but of no avail. However, on 09^th May 2019, he received a copy of letter from the OP No.2, which was addressed to OP No.4,wherein it was stated that no intimation regarding loss intimation of crop has been received and the complainant is not insured with OP No.2, and no detail/amount was received from the OP no.3 (Corp. Bank) regarding insurance of the paddy crop of the complainant. Complainant send all the necessary documents to all the OPs along with photocopy of the pass book to show that Rs.1250/- was debited from his account as a premium for the insurance of crop for the kharif season-2016. Claim amount for the loss of crop for the kharif season 2016 has been paid to all of the other farmers. Complainant requested time and again to OPs, but all went in vain. The OP No.2 (Bajaj Allianz) finally refused to pay the claim amount for loss of the crop under the scheme of PMFBY. By not paying the claim amount OPs have committed deficiency in service.Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs No.1& 4 appeared through its Authorized Representative and filedwritten version, raising preliminary objectionsregarding maintainability, jurisdiction, barred by time and cause of action. On merits, it is stated that the complainant did not mention any Hadbust Number and Khasra Numbers of the fields as stated to be the owner, for which he is demanding claim. It is further stated that the complainant gave an application for the loss of paddy crop form the Kharif season 2016 and the same was forwarded to the OP No.2. Reply of the said letter received from the OP No.2 and provided to the complainant. The answering OPs also forwarded the said letter to the OP No.3, for disbursement of claim. As such they have performed their duty diligently, thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs and the complaint filed against them may be dismissed.

                   Upon notice OP No.2,appeared through counsel and filedwritten version, raising preliminary objections regarding cause of action, estoppal and jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that the insured crop is Paddy & the insurance company did not receive any claim intimation, hence the claim is not payable under localizes calamities. Moreover there is no shortfall of yield in the notified area as mentioned in the present complaint by the complainant.As per the complaint, the complainant has his agricultural land in Ogara (122), whereas the details received from the corporation Bank, the farmer is insured against the notified area of Nanduwali (128). Complainant has not placed on record any documents/records in recognition of his ownership qua the land. Even the year of Jamabandi has not been mentioned. No crop of Kharif, 2016 has been damaged as per available information & thus the claim of the complainant is not payable. Even otherwise, there is no shortfall % of yield in the above notified area in the instant case & hence the claim is not payable. The OP No.2 acted well within the frame work of policy and there is no deficiency in service on its part, thus the complaint filed against it, may be dismissed with heavy costs.

                   Upon notice,OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filedwritten version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no locus standi and cause of action.  On merits, it is stated that the OP No.3 had remitted the total premium amount of Rs.3,05,375/- to the OP No.2 for the kharifseason of 2016, after deducting the premium amount from the agriculture loan accounts of its 166 customers, as shown in the list of farmers for kharif season 2016 under PMFBY. Including the premium amount of Rs.1250/- from the loan account of complainant Malkit Singh son of ShriSant Singh bearing No.CCCK/01/150124(old), new account No.560381000624415 and remitted the same to the OP No.2 vide Demand Draft bearing No.275519 dated 12.08.2016. Further stated that the OP No.2 sent the claim payment of other Farmers for Kharif season 2016 of village Nandiali, Tehsil and District Ambala for settlement vide email dated 29.12.2018 to it. The claim amount has been paid by it to the beneficiaries, but the list does not include the name of the complainant. The answering OP sent the E-mail dated 05.04.2019, to the OP No.2 for payment of the claim amount to the complainant, but no reply was received from it. Denying rest of allegations levelled by the complainant, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint filed against it.3.              Complainanttendered his affidavitas Annexure CA alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 4 tenderedaffidavit of ShriGirishNagpal, posted at Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ambalaas Annexure OP1/Aand closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1& 4.Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Shri Jai Singh, Senior Executive, Claims Legal, authorized signatory, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. as Annexure OP2/A along with documents Annexure OP2/1 to OP2/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2. On the other hand Ms. AkanshaJaswal, Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Ambala City, tendered her affidavit on behalf of OP No.3 as Annexure OP3/A along with documents Annexure OP3/1 to OP3/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

4.                We have heard the Ld. counselfor the parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Complainant has submitted that in fact his agriculture land is situated in the village Nandiali, however in the complaint due to typographical mistake, it has been written as OGARA (122). He is a rustic villager and has a little knowledge of English and while signing the complaint, this typographical mistake was overlooked by him. To prove this fact that his agriculture land, is situated at village Nandiali, he has produced the Jamabandi. The said jamabandi was perused by the Bench and returned back after retaining the photocopy, same is marked as ‘A’. Even in the certificate dated 05.04.2019, issued by the bank i.e. OP No.3, with whom the complainant has his loan account, it is stated that the address of the complainant is village Nandiali, Ambala. It is further stated that premium of Rs.1250/- was debited from the account of the complainant towards PMFBY for kharif-2016. The mistake in the name of the village in the complaint, being a typographical error, which has been proved to be so by production of jamabandi and from the certificate issued by the Bank, needs to be overlooked. The complainant further submitted that claim amount to all the farmers of village Nandiali has already been paid under the PMFBY for the loss of paddy for the kharif season of 2016 in the year 2019. His brother namely Randhir Singh, has already received the claim amount of Rs.57,483/- on 24.01.2019.To substantiate this fact he has placed on record the photocopy of the passbook of Randhir Singh Annexure C-9 and C-10.

                   The Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 i.e. Insurance Company has contended that the complainant was not insured with it as no details of the insurance of the paddy crop of the complainant for the kharif season 2019 was received from the bank. Even otherwise, no intimation regarding loss was given to it.Furthermore, there was no shortfall of yield crop. Therefore, it is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.

                   On the other hand the Ld. counsel for the OP No.3 has submitted that the paddy crop for the kharif season 2016, which the complainant had sown in his 3.11 acre of agriculture land was duly insured and an amount of Rs.1250/- as a premium was debited from the account of the complainant towards PMFBY for kharif season 2016. To corroborate this fact he has produced the register maintained by the Bank, same was perused by the Bench and it was found that the complainant had paid premium of Rs.1250/- for the kharif crop-2016 sown in 3.11 Acre of agriculture land situated at village Nandiali.  Said register was returned after retaining photocopy of the relevant page, which is markedas‘B’. To further fortify this fact he has drawn our attention to the letter dated 05.04.2019, Annexure OP3/5, written by the Bank to the insurance company. He further submitted that the list of 166 farmers inclusive of complainant along with list of amount of premium were duly forwarded to the OP No.2, i.e. insurance company. There is no deficiency on its part, hence the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed.

                   During the course of arguments a query was put to the authorised representative of the OP No.1& 4, as to whether there was damage to the paddy crop for the kharif season of 2016 in village Nandiali. To this effect he has submitted that there was damage to the crop of paddy during the kharif season of 2016, in the village Nandiali HB No.264 and as per the crop cutting experiment done in the said village for paddy crop of kharif season 2016, the loss of Rs.19,161.10 per hectare was calculated by the Agriculture Department and due claim amount has already been paid to the farmers of the said village. In suport of this contention he has produced the report, duly signed by the Deputy Director Agri. & Farmer Welfare Department, Ambala, and the claim list,same is taken on record and marked as ‘C’&‘D’. From the record, it is abundantly clear that there was damage of paddy crop in the kharif season 2016, in the village Nandiali, where the agriculture land of the complainant is situated and the insurance company has already given the claim amount to the farmers of the said village in the year 2019, except complainant. Thus, finally cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the present complainant in the year 2019 and he has filed the present complaint on 29.05.2019. Thus, the objections raised by the Ops No.1 & 4 that the complaint is barred by limitation is not tenable. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the present case into consideration, we are of the view that, since the claim amount has already been paid to other farmers of villageNandiali, therefore insurance company i.e. OP No.2 is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant also. By not doing so, OP No.2 has committed deficiency in service.

6.                Now, coming to the question of quantum of compensation.

                   It may be stated here that the agriculture department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.19161.10 per hectare. From the record, it is borne out that the complainant had sown the paddy crop for the kharif season of 2016 in 3.11 acre of his land.

Area in acres         =       3.11

Area in hectares     =       3.11/2.471  =       1.2586

Claim per hectare  =       Rs.19161.10

Total claim amount =     Rs.(19161.10X1.2586) = Rs.24116/-

                   Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount of Rs.24116.16 to the complainant along with interest. It is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation expenses. So, far as the deficiency on the part of OPs No.1, 3 and 4 is concerned, it may be stated here that we do not find any deficiency in rendering services on their part, therefore the complaint filed against them is liable to be dismissed.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OPs No.1, 3 and 4 and allow the same against OP No.2 and direct in the following manner:-

1. To pay the claim amount of Rs.24,116/- along with with 5% interest to the complainant from the date of filing of the complainti.e. 29.05.2019, till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation, mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigations expenses. 

 

                   The above said amount shall be paid by the OP No.2 to the complainant within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on:08.03.2021.

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (NeenaSandhu)

              Member                          Member                          President