Haryana

Kaithal

320/19

Mewa Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Vikram Singh

24 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.320 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 27.09.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:24.01.2023.

Mewa Ram aged 49 years son of Sh. Hari Kesh @ Kesa Ram, r/o Village Salimpur Mendud, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd., Kurukshetra Road, Kaithal, through its Manager, Distt. Kaithal.
2. Oriental Insurance Company, Kaithal through its Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Kaithal office at Secretariat, 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. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Arvind Khurania, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

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

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

       Mewa Ram-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 an agriculturist by profession and owned 15 acre of agricultural land situated at Village Salimpur Mendud, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.376151000306 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the paddy crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the period 2018-19 with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amounts of Rs.24,446.10 paise on 31.07.2018 and Rs.13,195.54 paise  on 13.12.2018 and Rs.25,876.28 paise on 12.07.2019 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 23 and 24 September, 2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent No.3 against the grievance faced by the complainant and the officials of respondent No.3 got inspected the land on 10.10.2018 and assessed 35 to 40% damage of paddy crops of 15 acres only out of total 104 Kanal 06 marla land of complainant.  The complainant requested the respondents to pay the claim amount but they did not do so.  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 regarding maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; 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 complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for which, elaborate evidence is required to be adduced.  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 as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Salimpur Mendud, Distt. Kaithal, due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy 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 the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for paddy crop of Village Salimpur Mendud, Distt. Kaithal.  As per yield data provided by Govt. on NCI Portal, actual yield is more than the threshold yield.  So, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.  However, it is made clear that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers.  If any mistake is done by bank of complainant or other institution, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that till date no intimation has been received by answering respondent regarding loss of alleged crop.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Respondent No.3 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the fields of complainant as-well-as other farmers were inspected by the officials of answering respondent randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied 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-C13 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence document Annexure-R1, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R2 & Annexure-R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             ­­­­ In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6557/- per acre.  Hence, for 15 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.98,355/- (Rs.6557/- x 15 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.98,355/- 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.2-insurance company to the complainant.     

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent No.2 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.:24.01.2023.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.