Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/215/2019

Bhagwan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard Gen Ins - Opp.Party(s)

Love Kumar

12 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    215 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution: 29.05.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 12.04.2022.

 

Bhagwan Singh s/o Shri Mehar Singh, aged about 47 years, r/o village Thaska Ali, P.O. Mandheri, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                       Versus

 

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 4^th Floor, The Statement, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, next to Honetel Hotel, Chandigarh-160002, through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Sector-17, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
3. State Bank of India, Branch Thol, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
4. Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture & FW, Government of Haryana, Sector-7, Kurukshetra.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Love Kumar, Adv. for the complainant.

                   Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the OP No.1 & 2.

                   OP No.3 ex-parte.

                   Shri Gaurav Bathla, Project Officer for the OP No.4.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                Going through the contents of the complaint, supportive documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 attached with it, written statement, brief facts of the complaint are, complainant was having about 8½ acres of land at village Thaska Ali and having its account and Kisan Credit Limit with OP No.3 bearing Account No.32128416485. He (complainant) sown paddy crop in the season 2017-18 in his above mentioned land and got insured the same with Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna from OPs No.1 & 2 through OP No.3 after paying Rs.3760/- as premium i.e. @Rs.434/- per acre on 29.07.2017. The complainant sowed his paddy crop after incurring Rs.10,000/- per acre on preparation of fields for crops, paniri, electricity bills etc. There was heavy rains in the area during the period of August 2017 to September 2017, due to which, the standing crops was destroyed and he duly informed the OPs in this regard and a team consisting of Block Agriculture Development, Shahabad along with Coordinator of OPs No.1,2 & 4 visited the flood effected land and reported that there is 100% loss to the crops sown by the complainant. At the time of inspection, water logging was at the spot and complete inspection and videography and photographs were taken by the said team. Thereafter, complainant visited various times to the office of OPs No.1 to 3 and 4 to get the compensation of Rs.20,000/- per acres, but all in vain, which is an act of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs, causing him mental agony, harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs before this Commission.

3.                On receipt of notice of complaint, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written statement, pleading non-maintainability; jurisdiction; non-limitation; privity of contract; impleading of necessary party, denying receipt of any premium from the complainant qua the policy in question. It is further stated, as per complaint, loss of paddy crop has been effected in village Thaska Ali, PO Mandheri, District Kurukshetra, due to reason mentioned as heavy rain, which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme and no documentary proof of any kind has been annexed with the complaint to prove the same. In the present complaint, complainant claiming for paddy crop of village Thaska Ali, PO Mandheri, Distt. Kurukshetra, but the alleged loss to the crop was not covered. Complainant has not supplied any proof for loss or weather index report of Metrological Department of India in support of his claim and in the absence of that, it cannot be believed that loss had actually happened in the village of complainant.  The complainant has not provided the requisite documents i.e. claim number with IL Code on survey report, Khasra report and CM helpline ATR report. The complainant has not provided or placed on record copy of insurance policy and in the absence of policy particulars like policy number, date of issuance and expiry and its insurance area, the OPs cannot be held liable. There is no negligence and deficiency on the part of OPs No.1 & 2.

4.                The OP No.3 filed its written statement, admitting, the farmer gave an intimation of damage crop on 23.9.2018 and same sent to insurance company to settle the claim and committed conducted the survey and submitted the report to the insurance company and concerned BAO/ADO/ATM/BTM was eye witness in this survey, but in village Thaskali claim arised on the basis of average yield i.e. 2830.48 kgs per hectare while the threshold yield 3643.38 kg per hectare as CCEs, that’s why claim arised Rs.15952.73 per hectare. Further report was sent to the Director, Agriculture and F.W. Haryana for settlement of claim.  

5.                Shri Love Kumar, counsel for the complainant, in the course of arguments, in material respect, reiterated to the version made into the complaint and apprised the Commission about evidence adduced on record by him.

6.                Shri Gaurav Gupta, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2, in the course of his arguments, also reiterated to the version made into the written statement and also apprised the Commission about evidence adduced on record by the OPs. He further submitted, there is no privity of contract between the answering OPs and the complainant, as it never received any premium qua the policy in question from the complainant, therefore, there is no negligence and deficiency in service on their part and complaint qua OPs No.1 & 2 is liable to be dismissed.  

7.                From the arguments and pleadings of the parties, this Commission has firstly to decide whether the OPs No.1 & 2 received any premium qua the policy in question from the complainant or OP No.3 or not.

8.                To support his contentions, complainant produced document Ex.C1 i.e. copy of his Passbook of his account bearing No.32128416485, maintained with OP No.3, and from perusal of second page of it, it is clear, an amount of Rs.3760/- was deducted on 29.07.2017, from the account of the complainant qua crop insurance, whereas, on the other hand, the OPs No.1 and 2 denied this fact to receive any premium qua the policy in question, from the complainant. Since it is now admitted fact that Rs.3760/- has been deducted, by the OP No.3, from the account of complainant qua the crop insurance, but the same has been credited to the OPs No.1 & 2, qua the crop insurance policy or not, only the OP No.3 can tell about this fact, who was not appeared before this Commission, despite receipt of notice of complaint, from this Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 22.07.2019, passed by this Commission. Assuming, had the OP No.3 paid the premium, qua the policy in question, to the OPs No.1 & 2, then the policy would have been in force and the complainant would have been entitled to the its benefits, if any. Since the OP No.3 failed to appear before this Commission, therefore, this Commission has left with no other option except to believe the contention of OPs No.1 & 2 about not receiving the premium qua policy in question either from complainant or OP No.3, which was deducted by OP No.3 from the account of complainant, vide document Ex.C1 and by not paying the premium to the OPs No.1 & 2 qua policy in question, is an act of gross negligence on the part of the OP No.3, being a Corporate Body, therefore, assuming the policy in question was in force and if any benefits/claim has to be made regarding the policy in question, by the OPs No.1 & 2, to the complainant, then the same will be solely paid by OP No.3, to the complainant.

9.                In the complaint, complainant alleged, he sown paddy crop in 8½ acres of land for the season 2017-18, which was completely destroyed due to rain. In this regard, complainant produced Village wise yield, threshold yield, sum insured and claim of paddy crop under PMFBY for Kharif 2017-18 as Ex.C8 and in that document at Sr. No.70, claim amount for per acre for village Thaska Ali (village of complainant) was Rs.15952.73 per hectare.

                   Claim amount                =       Rs.15,952.73 per hectare

                   1 Hectare                       =       2.47 acre.

                   Rs.15,952.73 / 2.47       =       Rs.6458.60 per acre

                   Rs.6458.60 x 8½           =       Rs.54898/-

                  

                   So, in view of above calculation, the complainant is entitled to Rs.54898/- from the OP No.3, for the loss suffered by him.

10.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OP No.3 and direct it to make the payment of Rs.54898/-. The OP No.3 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony ad physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.3 with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OP No.3 is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OP No.3. Complaint qua OPs No.1 & 2 is dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Prounced:

Dated: 12.04.2022.

 

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.