Haryana

Kaithal

304/20

Pun Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.S Pannu

04 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.304/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 22.09.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:04.09.2023.

Pun Ram @ Charan Singh S/o Hari Kesh S/o Lali aged 60 years, resident of Village Dohar, Tehsil Siwan, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. ICICI Bank Pehowa through its Branch Manager, Pehowa, Tehsil Kurukshetra, Distt. Kurukshetra.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department, Kaithal, Office at Room No.103, Secretariat, Kaithal.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. J.S.Pannu, Advocate, for the complainant.   

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

                Sh. M.R.Miglani, Adv. for the OP No.2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, G.P. for the OP No.3.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Pun Ram @ Charan Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and owned agriculture land measuring 7 acre land situated at Village Dohar, Distt. Kaithal.  The complainant has taken 21 acre land of their three brothers namely Gurnam Singh, Afsar Singh and Vakil Singh on Theka of Rs.55,000/- per acre as-well-as some land of other villagers on Theka.  The complainant is cultivating the 60 acre land in Village Dohar and also insured their crops of 60 acre cultivated land through “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and also paid the premium of crops of 60 acre land to the insurance company through the bank.  The complainant has an account No.073051000186 with the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of Kharif (paddy) for the period 2018 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.15890.70 paise on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in that area, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and the loss of paddy crops was assessed upto the extent of 50% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land.  The complainant requested the OPs 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 OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  OP No.1 filed the written version 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 of Rs.15890.70 was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.2, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

4.             OP No.2 filed the written version mentioning therein that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Dohar, 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; 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; that as per survey report, the claim of complainant has not been made on threshold yield basis; that the complainant has not filed any individual application for assessing his loss, so no claim is made out on the threshold basis and present complaint is not maintainable.  Moreover, under localized based claim, complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to answering OP within stipulated period of 48 hours of alleged loss to process the claim as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             OP 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 OP randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             On the other hand, the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2, OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R3 & Annexure-R4 and OP No.1 tendered into evidence document Annexure-R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

9.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and owned agriculture land measuring 7 acre land situated at Village Dohar, Distt. Kaithal.  The complainant has taken 21 acre land of their three brothers namely Gurnam Singh, Afsar Singh and Vakil Singh on Theka of Rs.55,000/- per acre as-well-as some land of other villagers on Theka.  The complainant is cultivating the 60 acre land in Village Dohar and also insured their crops of 60 acre cultivated land through “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and also paid the premium of crops of 60 acre land to the insurance company through the bank.  The complainant has an account No.073051000186 with the OP No.1.  It is further argued that the OP No.1 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of Kharif (paddy) for the period 2018 with the OP No.2 and had deducted the amount of Rs.15890.70 paise on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in that area, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.2 and the loss of paddy crops was assessed upto the extent of 50% damage of paddy crop in his agriculture land.  The complainant requested the OPs 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 OPs.

10.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-bank has argued that the premium amount of Rs.15,890.70 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.2, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any. 

11.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-Insurance Company has argued that as per survey report, the claim of complainant has not been made on threshold yield basis.  It is further argued that the complainant has not filed any individual application for assessing his loss, so no claim is made out on the threshold basis and present complaint is not maintainable.  Moreover, under localized based claim, complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to OP No.2, so, he is not entitled for any relief.        

12.            Sh. Pushpinder Saini, GP for the OP No.3-Agriculture Department has stated that no intimation was given by the complainant under localized survey.  He has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT at the time of arguments, which is Mark-A on the file.   

13.            The objection raised by ld. counsel for the OP No.2 as-well-as OP No.3 is that intimation regarding loss was not given by the complainant.  To rebut the said contention, ld. counsel for the complainants has drawn our attention towards the law laid down in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Puran etc. 2021(2) CLT 171 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 19.12.2019, wherein it is held by Hon’ble National Commission that “Plea of insurance company that no privity of contract between petitioner and complainants and no intimation of loss given-Admittedly, premium for crop insurance came to be paid from accounts of complainant-Therefore, it cannot be said that complainants are not consumers of petitioner company-Further, in view of alleged failure to intimate loss to insurer, written version filed by State Bank of India before District Forum shows that scheme did not envisage any such intimation-Therefore, revision petitions dismissed with liberty to petitioner company to avail such remedy as may be open to it in law against concerned Govt.”  The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case as the premium of Rs.15,890.70 paise was deducted by the OP No.1-bank from the account of complainant under the PMFBY scheme.  So, the contention of OPs No.2 & 3 that no intimation was given has no force.  So far the liability is concerned, if there was any discrepancy in the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) etc. of the farmers concerned, then it was required for the OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the said amount, within two months of cutoff date to the OP No.1 bank, but nothing has been done on the part of OP No.2 and this Commission rely upon in this regard on “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018” and its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii is relevant, which reads as under:-

“xxii) The Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the Insurance Company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim”.  

14.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was the required for OP No.2 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmers concerned to OP No.1 bank after pointing out any discrepancy on its end, within the period of cut off date of two months, but in the case in hand, OP No.2 had neither raised any objection within the period of cutoff date of two months nor intimated to OP No.1 bank regarding any discrepancy in this regard and kept the premium amount with it, and now at the time when crops of complainant was destroyed and he is demanding the claim amount, as per policy from it, then OP No.2 refused to pay the same on this flimsy ground, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. As such, the OP No.2 insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of their crop.

15.            So far the land in question is concerned.  The complainant has alleged in para No.2 & 3 of the complaint that he is taking 21 acre land of their three brothers as well-as some land of other villagers on Theka and in this way, he is cultivating the 60 acre land in village Dohar and he had paid the premium of 60 acre land.  The complainant has not placed on file any authentic and proper document from which it could be clear that he had taken the land on theka basis.  In this regard, query was made to representative of OP No.3-Agriculture Department, who has stated that premium amount of Rs.595/- was assessed per acre in the year 2018, so, in this way, the land comes as 26.71 acre (Rs.15,890.70 paise ÷Rs.595/).  Moreover, it is also clear from the Annexure-R5 that 26.71 land was insured.  Hence, the contention of complainant that he was cultivating 60 acre land in Village Dohar has no force.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8933.76 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 26.71 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.2,38,620/- (Rs.8933.76 paise x 26.71 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Insurance Company.        

16.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.2,38,620/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  The OP No.2-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against OP No.2-insurance company and dismissed against OPs No.1 & 3.     

17.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP 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.:04.09.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.