Haryana

Kaithal

66/20

Kehar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.V Ravish

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.66 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 05.02.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:27.02.2023.

Kehar Singh S/o Sh. Lilu Ram, House near Post Office, Ladwa Patti Rajound, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Limited Ward No.7, Assandh, District Karnal through its Branch Manager.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company, Branch Office at Dhand Road near I.D.B.I. Bank Kaithal, District Kaithal through its General Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Kaithal office at Room No.305, Mini Secretariat, Kaithal.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

               

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

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

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

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

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

       Kehar Singh-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 is owner of 11 acre land at Village Ralound and also having 25 acre land on lease for the share of Gulabo Devi W/o Vedpal, Samira W/o Rajpal and Asha Devi W/o Rishipal, who are recorded co-sharers with the complainant at Village Rajound, District Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has sown the paddy crops in agriculture land measuring 36 acre land for the year 2018 and the complainant availed/obtained Krishi Credit Card for 36 acre land including land taken on lease from the respondent No.1 vide account No.215851000093 and also opted the PMFBY plan for which a premium of Rs.25,592.70 paise on 31.07.2018 was deducted from the account of complainant.  The respondent No.1 got insured the paddy crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2.  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 reported the matter to the respondent No.3 and the officials of respondents No.3 in return inspected the agriculture fields of nine or ten farmers as the village Ralound was unit for damages and the loss of paddy crop was assessed.  The fields of complainant is adjacent to one Shiv Kumar S/o Prem Singh and the loss of crops of Shiv Kumar was assessed upto the extent of 40-%0% and damage has been paid to Shiv Kumar.  The complainant has suffered a loss of approximately Rs.4,60,000/-.  The complainant 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 regarding maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complainant had approached the bank for a financial assistance and after considering his eligibility, the bank had sanctioned him KCC loan vide loan account No.215851000093; that the applicable insurance premium was deducted from the account of the complainant for the Kharif, 2018 paddy (Dhan) crops and same was sent to OP No.2-Oriental Insurance Company; that the crop insurance is a regulatory requirement for all the loanee farmers as per the Operating Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) and the Bank, take a one-time authorization from all the loanee farmers for debiting the crop insurance premium basis notifications received from the insurance companies; that the bank is an intermediary in the crop insurance process; that the answering respondent No.1 has nothing to do with the insurance or any of its claim.  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 the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct.  As per survey report, the claim of complainant has not been made on threshed yield basis.  The complainant has not filed any individual application for assessing his loss, so no claim is made out on the threshed hold basis and present complaint is not maintainable; 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 Ladwa Patti, Rajound, Distt. Kaithal.  As per yield data provided by Agriculture Department, 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 the complainant never supplied any document to the answering respondent to prove the ownership/version of Jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari etc.  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-C12 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R1, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence document Annexure-R1, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith document Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.  Respondent No.1 did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of respondent No.1 was closed vide court order dt. 31.12.2022 

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

8.             Ms. Ruchika, SA Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and she has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8976/- per acre.  Hence, for 36 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.3,23,136/- (Rs.8976/- x 36 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.2-insurance company to pay Rs.3,23,136/- 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.:27.02.2023.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

                (Suman Rana),          

                Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.