BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.: 143 of 2017
Date of Institution: 21.06.2017
Date of order: 28.09.2018.
Bhagirath son of Ram Pat, resident of village Bangoan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
….. Complainant.
Versus
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Ground Floor, SCO 64, Sector-8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
- Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Bangoan, Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.
Present: Sh.Sukhbir Dhaka, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Vishnu Delu, counsel for the OP No.1.
Sh. I.S. Sihag, counsel for the OP No.2
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that the he is owner in possession of the agriculture land comprising in Khewat No. 233 Khasra No. 79 measuring 2.25 hectares situated in village Bangaon, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. The above said land was insured with the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.24,000/- per acre and a total amount of Rs. 1111 (776+335) was deducted by the OP no. 2 on 25.7.2016 from the bank account of the complainant bearing no. 83468800000556. The abovesaid insurance was issued by the OP no. 1 under the scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY). Therefore, the complainant is consumer of Ops as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. It is further submitted that the complainant had sown cotton crop in the above said land but unfortunately due to heavy rainfall and flood the cotton crop of the complainant was considerably damaged. Therefore, the complainant moved an application on 28.9.2016 in the office of Agriculture Department at Fatehabad and thereafter on 30.9.2016, the abovesaid land of the complainant was inspected and a loss to the tune of 35% was assessed on 30.9.2016 in 2.25 hectares of land by the Loss Assessing Team.
3. It is further submitted by the complainant that an average cotton yield in the area is 10 quintals i.e. 25 maunds per acres but the complainant produced less than 3.5 quintals per acre in the abovesaid land and as such the complainant suffered a total loss of 22 quintals in the abovesaid land of 2.25 hectares. The market rate of the cotton during the relevant period was Rs. 6,000/- per quintal and as such the complainant had suffered a total loss of Rs. 1,32,000/-.
4. It is further submitted that in view of the insurance policy issued by the OPs, the OP no. 1 is liable to indemnify the complainant by making him the payment of abovesaid amount. Therefore, the complainant time and again requested OP no. 1 to indemnify him by making the payment of the abovesaid amount but all in vain. It is further submitted that the abovesaid act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant. The complainant has further prayed that the OP no. 1 may be directed for making a payment of Rs. 1,32,000/- to the complainant along-with Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. Hence, the present complaint.
5. On being served OP no. 1 appeared through counsel and on 27.9.2017 the learned counsel for OP no. 1 recorded his statement that insurance claim of the complainant under PMFBY Scheme is under process and the same will be credited in the account of the complainant. This is the reply of OP no. 1 to the complaint and no other reply has to be submitted.
6. The OP no. 2 resisted the complaint by filing a written reply, wherein various preliminary objections with regard to abuse of process of law, cause of action, maintainability and concealment of true and correct facts have been raised.
7. In reply on merits, it is submitted that in accordance with the notification dated 17.6.2016 issued by Agriculture Department of Haryana and in accordance with the instructions and directions of the Government an amount of Rs. 776.64 with regard to land measuring 16 Kanals of village Bangaon and Rs. 335.04 with regard to land measuring 6 Kanal 18 Marlas of Bighar village have been debited from the account of the complainant as a premium of cotton crop insurance at the rate of 24,000/- per acre and under this the crop of the complainant standing in the abovesaid land for which the complainant had obtained the standard loan was insured by the OP/Bank from the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company. Therefore, if there is any claim regarding the alleged damage stated by the complainant in that eventuality the complainant can claim only of the damage of crop from OP no. 1 and not from the answering OP. OP no. 2 is not liable to pay any amount of the alleged damage or compensation to the complainant. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OP no. 2 in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP no. 2.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A wherein the averments made by the complainant in his complaint have been affirmed. The learned counsel for the complainant also tendered in evidence the documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP no. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Apurva Sharma, Authorized Signatory of OP no. 1 as Exhibit OPW1/A. The learned counsel for the OP no. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri Mayank Goyal, Branch as Annexure R-1 and the documents as Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-3.
9. The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments contended that the complainant is having K.C.C. account bearing number 83468800000556 with OP no. 2. The OP no. 1 issued insurance of cotton crop sown by the complainant in 2.25 hectares of agriculture land situated in village Bangaon and village Bighar a total premium of Rs. 1111/- was debited on 25.7.2016 from his KCC account by OP no. 2 as premium of insurance of cotton crop. The insurance of the abovesaid crop was issued at the rate of Rs. 24000/- per acre. The said insurance was issued by OP no. 1 under the scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It is further contended by the learned counsel that unfortunately on account of heavy rains and flood the insured cotton crop of the complainant was considerably damaged. Therefore, on the application of the complainant dated 28.9.2016 submitted in Agriculture Department, Haryana, the abovesaid agriculture land of the complainant was inspected by team consisting of Agricultural Development Officer and Sh. Ram Niwas Loss Assessor representative of OP no. 1. After inspection the inspecting team assessed the loss to the tune of 35%. It is further contended by the learned counsel that OP no. 1 being insurer is liable to indemnify the complainant in respect of the losses suffered by him. Therefore, the complainant requested the OP no. 1 for making payment of the compensation but all in vain. The learned counsel further contended that the case of the complainant for grant of insurance claim by OP no. 1 is fully covered under the terms and conditions of the policy and moreover similar situated farmers whose cotton crop insurance had been issued had already been indemnified by the OP no. 1, which is evident from Annexure C-5 and Annexure C-6. The non-payment of insurance claim to the complainant by OP no. 1 falls within the definition of deficiency on its part in rendering service to the complainant. The learned counsel further prayed that the present complaint may be accepted and OP no.1 may be directed for a payment of Rs. 1,32,000/- to the complainant on account of damage of insured crop along-with compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. The learned counsel also submitted written arguments along-with documents. The learned counsel also submitted written arguments along-with documents.
10. In her affidavit Exhibit OPW1/A, Smt. Apurva Sharma has submitted that the claim of the complainant in the present case has already been paid. In his arguments the learned counsel for OP no. 1 has also submitted that the insurance claim under the PMFBY in the present case has already been paid to the complainant. However, the learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments submitted that till date no insurance claim in the present case has been disbursed by the OPs to the complainant. No document has been produced by OP no. 1 to prove that payment of insurance claim has been made to the complainant.
11. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the OP no. 1 and in view of submission made in the affidavit Exhibit OPW1/A, the OP no. 1 has admitted the deficiency on the part of OP no. 1 in making payment of insurance claim to the complainant. The present complaint is accordingly allowed.
12. Regarding quantification of loss, it is submitted that as per the written statement filed by OP no. 2 that the land measuring 16 Kanals of village Bangaon and the land measuring 6 Kanals 18 Marlas was insured by the OP no. 1. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for receiving insurance claim for the land measuring 23 Kanals. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the OP no. 1 had insured the cotton crop in question at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per acre i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per Kanal. So, keeping in view the 35% loss the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 1050/- in one Kanal and Rs. 24,150/- in 23 Kanals. Therefore, the OP no. 1 is directed to make a payment of Rs. 24,150/- (Rs.Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred Fifty only) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization. The OP no. 1 is also further directed for making a payment of Rs. 3,100/- (Rs.Three thousand one hundred only) as litigation charges to the complainant. In case any payment has already been made by the OP no. 1 to the complainant in that eventuality the same should be adjusted in the abovesaid ordered amount. The abovesaid order be complied with within a period of 45 days, otherwise the abovesaid amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum during the period of default. No deficiency is found on the part of OP no. 2. The present complaint is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Dated:28.09.2018
(Raghbir Singh) President
(Rajni Goyat) (Jasvinder Singh) Distt. Consumer Disputes
Member Member Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
