Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/191/2018

Bhoop Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Godara

01 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.191 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.:  13.07.2018.                                                                        Date of Decision: 01.05.2023

Bhoop  Singh son of Ami Lal r/o VPO Jandwala Bagar, Tehsil Bhattu District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

 

1.ICICI  Insurance Company 23, 3^rd floor Narian Manzil, Barakhamba Road, Near Barakhamba Metro Station, New Delhi, 110001.

2. State Bank of India, through its Bank Manager, Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad.

3.State of Haryana through agriculture Director, Agriculture Department, Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:                   Sh.Vinod Godara, Advocate for complainant.                                           Sh. U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                         OP no.2 exparte vide order dated 08.11.2018.                                          Sh.Sanjay ASO on behalf of Op No.3

 

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  SH.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.

                                       

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession having land at village Jandwala Bagar, District Fatehabad; that the crop standing on the land in question was got insured and regarding this amount of Rs.6022/- was deducted on 03.01.2017 and an amount of Rs.5174/- was also deducted as premium for rabi crop; that on 17.04.2017 the sub canal of  Gigorani got damaged due to over flow and the crops of complainant standing in 13 acres of land got damaged ; that on his application, the concerned official inspected the site and assessed 50 % loss to the wheat crops and 100 % loss to the cotton crop; that the complainant requested the Ops to make the loss good by paying compensation of insured crops which got damaged due to breaking of sub-canal but to no avail.  The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

2.                          On notice, Ops No.1 & 3 appeared and filed their separate replies.  Op No.1/insurance company, in its reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action and locus standi etc. It has been further averred that the present complaint before this Commission is not maintainable because  except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalised by government agencies and  the complainant should have approached DAC & FW Department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and decision of said department would have been binding on State Government/Insurance Company/Banks/farmers but instead of that the complainants had approached the District Consumer Commission (earlier Consumer Forum) with malafide intention by violating standard terms and conditions of the scheme. Further, the complainant had never given any intimation to the insurance company regarding any loss despite the fact that there is a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. It has been further averred that no proof of loss or weather report has been submitted with insurance company by the complainant and even quantification of loss cannot be determined in absence of necessary survey and there is no privity of contract between complainants and insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company.  Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.       

3.                          Op No.2 did not put appearance despite issuance of notice through registered post, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.11.2018.

4.                          Op No.3 in its separate reply has submitted that on the application dated 18.04.2017 of complainant, his land was inspected by the. Preliminary objection of maintainability has also been taken. Other contents of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.       

5.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 6.                     On the other hand, no evidence on behalf of Op No.1 has been led despite availing ample opportunities; therefore, its evidence was closed on 17.05.2022 by Commission order.  Affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Sihag and documents have tendered as Annexure R1 to Annexure R4 on behalf of Op No.3 and evidence was closed.  

7.                          We have heard oral final arguments from both sides and perused the case file minutely.

8.                          The grievance of the complainant is that his cotton and wheat crop got damaged as water logged in his fields due to breaking of sub canal but till today he has not received any insurance claim. The complainant in order to prove his case has placed on file copy of account statement with regard to deduction of premium of insurance for the crops standing in his fields.

9.                          Perusal of statement of account of complainant Annexure C2 reveals that an amount of Rs.5174/- was deducted as premium for Rabi crop 2017.  In Annexure C4, loss assessment report, it has been mentioned that the complainant had sown wheat crop in nine acre of land and due to logging of water on account of breaking of canal, 50 % of the wheat crop of the complainant got damaged. In this very report, it has also been mentioned that there is 100 % loss to the cotton crop but the same was not insured as premium for insurance of cotton crop was not deducted.  In this document, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.11000/- per acre with regard to loss of wheat crop in village Jandwala Bagar.

10.                        Undisputedly, the insurance company had accepted the payment qua insurance premium of crop without any objection and now when crop of the complainant got damaged, the insurance company has arbitrarily and illegally denied to pay the genuine claim of the complainant.  Hence, the insurance company only is found deficient in service besides indulging in unfair trade practice. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.1/insurance company only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the wheat cotton crop of complainant for Rabi 2017 season. Since the cotton crop of the complainant was not insured at the time of loss due to breaking of canal, therefore, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for any claim/compensation on account of loss of cotton crop.

11.                        Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant has suffered loss of sown crop in 3.64 hectare and the concerned Agriculture Department in the report Annexure C4 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.11,000/- per acre, therefore, it would be just and proper to give compensation to the complainant as assessed by the concerned agriculture department in its report.

12.                        It is established on the file that the premium, with regard to cotton crop which also got damaged due to breaking of canal, was not deducted and in order to reach at any conclusion as well as to find the cause for not deducting the premium of insurance, elaborating evidence is required. Since, the proceedings before this Commission are summarily in nature and even this Commission cannot decide the controversy which is out of the purview of Consumer Protection Act, therefore, the plea with regard to compensation of loss of cotton crop is not maintainable before this Commission. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach at appropriate Court/Tribunal, keeping in view of his allegations with regard to damage of cotton crops, if he so advised and in that eventuality, the period of litigation before this Commission shall not be counted towards the period of limitation for approaching appropriate court/forum.  Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted  in terms of the  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “ Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC page 583. .

13.                        Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint against OP No.1/insurance company only with a direction to pay an amount of Rs.20020/- (in round figure) as 50 % of total loss alongwith simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment, as insurance claim amount to the complainant for the damages of only Rabi crop of 2017, sown by him in 3.64 hectare. Op No.1/insurance company is also directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rs.Eleven Thousand) towards compensation for harassment and mental agony etc. suffered by the complainant as well as for litigation expenses. The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the entire amount would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, no deficiency is found on the part of OPs no. 2 & 3, therefore, complaint against Ops No.2 & 3 stands dismissed.

14.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents 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. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.