Haryana

Kaithal

278/19

Inder - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.V Ravish

29 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.278 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 26.08.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:29.08.2022.

1. Inder S/o Jhandu 2. Vikram S/o Inder, both residents of Village Nandkaran Majra, Block Rajound, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainants.

                        Versus

1. ICICI Bank, Branch at 1065A/11, Professor Colony, Kurukshetra Road, Kaithal, District Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office at Dhand Road near I.D.B.I. Bank Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal through its General Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department Kaithal, Office at Room No.305, Mini Secretariat, Kaithal.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Rajesh Majra, Advocate for the complainants.   

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

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Inder and Vikram-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 the complainants are agriculturists by profession and also used to take the land on lease and the complainant No.2 taken the land of one Shamsher Singh S/o Ram Kishan i.e. 55 Kanals 19 Marla for the year 2018-19 on lease and have their own agriculture land of 29 kanals 2 marlas land, so, the premium of insurance of 84 kanals 0 marlas has been deducted from the account of complainant No.2.  It is alleged that the complainants have an account No.086151000112 with the respondent No.1.  The respondent No.1 got insured the paddy crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.6850.20 paise as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water on 22, 23 and 24 September, 2018, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant reported the matter to the respondent No.3 and the officials of respondents No.3 in return inspected the agriculture fields of complainant and assessed 55% to 60% damage of paddy crop of complainants as-well-as other farmers also.  The complainants have suffered a loss of approximately Rs.1,50,000/-.  The complainants requested the Ops to pay the said 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 with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that Mr. Vikram is a KCC customer of ICICI Bank.  He had approached the bank for a financial assistance and after considering his eligibility, they had sanctioned him a loan vide loan account No.086151000112 in March, 2016; that all farmers in a specific village are insured for specific crop.  As and when claims are calculated and released by insurance company, the same gets credited to customer account, if found eligible.  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.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that as per record, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Majra Nand Karan, due to the reason mentioned as “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 fact, as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Agricultural Department (Haryana Govt.), the actual yield is more than the threshold yield, hence, nothing is payable by the insurance company.  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 answering respondent received so many applications regarding damage of crops and found that there was no crop standing in the fields as stated by the farmers, the loss was assessed 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 their case, the complainants tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C14 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith document Annexure-R1 and Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith document Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             Sh. Rajesh Majra, Adv. for the complainant has stated that vide Annexure-C1, which is the bank account statement of complainant, the premium of Rs.6850.20 paise has been sent to P.N.B.-respondent No.1 which has forwarded the same to insurance company-respondent No.2. 

9.             Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company has argued that complainant is not insured with the respondent-insurance company.  It has been further argued that the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Majra Nand Karan, due to the reason mentioned as “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.

10.            Sh. A.K.Khurania, Adv. for the respondent No.1 has stated that the premium amount of Rs.6850.20 paise was deducted from the loan account of complainant and the same was paid to the respondent No.2-insurance company.    

11.            Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and he has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village survey, under PMFBT, which is mentioned as under:-

Claim based on Localized Survey:

Intimation Received for Localized Claim          = Yes

Type of Survey                                           = Village Level

According to farmer loss percentage of paddy

Crop in survey report (Approx.)                     =53%

 

Cost of Cultivation                                       =Rs.46950/-per hect.

 

Cost of Cultivation                                       =Rs.19008/-per acre

 

Approx. Claim for 1 Acre                      =19008x53/100=Rs.10074.24

 

                        In the present case, the complainants have suffered loss in 10 acre as per record.  So, as per above-mentioned crop claim based on Village survey submitted by Agriculture Department, Kaithal, Rs.10074.24 paise per acre is awarded to the complainants.  Hence, the complainants are entitled for the amount of Rs.1,00,742.40 paise (Rs.10074.24 paise x 10 acre).      

12.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.1,00,742.40 paise to the complainants alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 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 complainants.     

13.            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.:29.08.2022.

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.