Haryana

Kaithal

59/20

Nanhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI .Lombard Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Hem Raj Wadhwa

09 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.59 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 04.02.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:09.02.2023.

1. Nanhi, aged 53 years wd/o late Sh. Khushi Ram 2. Mandeep, aged 25 years. 3 Sandeep aged 22 years ss/o late Sh. Khushi Ram son of Sh. Balak Ram Rs/o Village Kichhana, Tehsil Rajound, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainants.

                        Versus

1. The I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Company, Kaithal through its Branch Manager, Kaithal.
2. Punjab National Bank, Jakholi 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 complainants.   

                Sh. A.K.Khurania, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Ms. Ruchika, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

       Nanhi and others-Complainants have 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 late Sh. Khushi Ram S/o Sh. Balak Ram (since deceased) was recorded owner of the agriculture land measuring 32 Kanals 15 marla being ¼ share of the total land measuring 131 Kanals 10 Marla, detail mentioned in para No.2 of the complaint.  It is the case of complainants that after the death of late Sh. Khushi Ram, the complainants have inherited the land measuring 32 Kanals 15 marla and due to rain fall, water logging in the paddy crops, the crops have been totally damaged and the complainants have suffered huge losses.  It is further alleged that Khushi Ram (since deceased) had already insured his paddy crops sown on approximately 32 Kanals 15 marla with the respondent No.1 under the Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) Scheme and respondent No.2 has debited the amount for Fasal Bima from the account of deceased Khusi Ram bearing No.0714008800025067 with PNB Jakholi-respondent No.2.  It is further 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 complainants are owners and have inherited the land measuring 32 Kanals 15 marla, the loss caused due to water logging due to flood in the fields of complainant which comes to Rs.1,14,400/- (i.e. Rs.28,600/- per acre x 4 acres).  It is further alleged that despite repeated requests and demands, the respondent No.1 has not made the claim amount 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 with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; locus-standi; time barred; that the scheme of Pardhan Mantri Bima Yojna was introduced by Govt. of India and is being implemented by State of Haryana, hence Govt. of India & State of Haryana are necessary parties for just decision of this complaint; that respondent No.1 has limited role about issuance of crop insurance policy or about processing & adjudication of insurance claim pertaining to present complainant.  However, it is submitted that as per Operational Guidelines (OGs) of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) and Notification dt. 17.06.2016 issued by Govt. of Haryana bearing memo No.3009/Agri.II(1)-2016/10854 & notification bearing No.941-Agri-II(1)-2018/4332 dt. 30.03.2018 is required to be covered under this PMFBY scheme; that no prior intimation of loss suffered by the complainant was ever given to the respondent No.1 by the complainant.  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 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 qua kharif crop was debited from KCC account of husband of complainant No.1 on 31.07.2017 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif, 2017 amounting to Rs.1767.05 paise and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.1 alongwith crop insurance premium of other farmers also in their account through transaction bearing UTR No.PUNBH17215313892 on 03.08.2017 alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Alongwith above-said cumulative crop insurance premium amount of Rs.2107159.28 paise of Khariff, 2017 and consolidated data of different loanee farmers including that of husband of complainant No.1 were given to respondent No.1 before cut off date.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Respondents No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction and evasively denied all the facts contained in the complaint.  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 Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R12 and thereafter, closed the evidence.  Respondent No.2 did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of respondent No.2 was closed vide court order dt. 09.01.2023.

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

8.             ­­­­Ms. Ruchika, SA Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and she 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.10,864/- per acre.  Hence, for 2 acre loss, the complainants are entitled for the amount of Rs.21,728/- (Rs.10,864/- x  2 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.21,728/- to the complainants 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.:09.02.2023.

 

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.