Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 341.
Instituted on : 07.06.2017.
Decided on : 27.09.2019
Dilbag Singh age 70 years, s/o Sh. Sube Singh resident of village-Kiloi(DOPANA) Tehsil and District-Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance company Ltd., Office at -2nd Floor, Appu Garh, Shopping complex, SCF-35, Improvement Trust, Scheme-19, Civil Road, Pin code-124001, through its Branch Manager, Rohtak.
- Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Village-Kiloi, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.M.K.Vaid, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.R.N.Saini, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has agriculture land in the revenue estate of village Kiloi and in the month of July, 2016 the complainant sowed crop of Dhaan in his field and the same was insured with the opposite party under the policy of PMFBY (Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna) through his Bank. That at the time of harvesting the crops, all the crops were damaged due to heavy rain. That complainant sent the information of damage to the opposite party immediately and also submitted the claim intimation form duly signed with all relevant documents with the opposite party. That a verification report of present Sarpanch of the complainant’s village regarding molder of crops of the complainant with written request submitted to the insurance company by the complainant. That complainant visited the office of opposite party several times for payment of claim amount but they flatly refused to pay the claim on 07.04.2017. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the compensation of total loss of Dhaan crop alongwith interest and also to pay Rs.150000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment and Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that every farmer who wants to get the benefits of KCC, then he should have compulsorily get the insurance under the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Suraksha Bima Yojana”. The complainant never supplied necessary information and documents to prove the same. That the complainant should have approached to DAC & FW(Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare) department for any kind of grievances related to scheme or claim, but the complainant has filed the complaint before this Forum which cannot be adjudicated. That any loss intimated after 48 hours cannot be entertained as per the insurance policy terms and conditions of scheme of PMFBY in which the captioned KCC is covered. That complainant has not disclosed any time and date of loss in the claim petition. The complainant has also not provided any survey report regarding loss and any other proof to prove the damages of the alleged crops. Hence the loss of crop has been rejected as per terms and conditions of the scheme. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that as per loan documents, an amount of Rs.1580.80 was paid as premium for insurance of crop on 29.07.2016. That the answering respondent has no concern with payment of compensation because the same is to be paid by the respondent no.1. It is further submitted that as per account statement, an amount of Rs.3961.01 has been received on 07.07.2017 and an amount of Rs.53754.60 was received on 21.09.2017 and the same has been adjusted towards the loan amount. The answering respondent has no concern with the payment of compensation because the same is to be paid by the respondent no.1. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and the evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 17.05.2019 of this Forum. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on 22.08.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.R2/1 and closed his evidence on dated 13.06.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present complaint, the complainant pleaded that he has suffered loss in his 24 kanal i.e. 3 acres of agricultural land. He sown Dhaan crops in his fields and the same was insured with the opposite party No.1 under the policy of PMFBY (Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna) through opposite party no.2 i.e. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank. The complainant is having a KCC A/c with the respondent no.2 through which his land was hypothecated with the bank and as per copy of pass book Ex.C1, an amount of Rs.1580/- was deducted from his account on account of the insurance of crops. Due to ‘Heavy rain’ the complainant’s crops damaged. Copy of Nakal Jamabandi Ex.C3 is also placed on record.
7. In the present case, no assessment of loss has been placed on record. However, at the time of argument, ld.counsel for the complainant has placed on record a document ‘Annexure-JN-A’, which is a certificate issued by the Sarpanch of village Kiloi (DOPANA), and countersigned by Nambardar and Member of Gram Panchayat, Village Kiloi Dopana, Tehsil & Distt. Rohtak, as per which it is submitted that the complainant has insured his 3 acre of land with the Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank and due to heavy rain in the village in the year 2016, all his crops destroyed.
8. Hence from the documents placed on record, it is established that the complainant’s crop of 3 acre was damaged due to ‘Heavy Rain’. As such, complainant is entitled for loss suffered by him in 3 acre of land. As per document ‘Annexure-JN’, the sum insured for paddy is Rs.62500/- per hectare i.e. to say Rs.25000/- per acre. The complainant has suffered loss in 3 acres. Accordingly he is entitled for the loss of Rs.75000/- for 3 acres. As per affidavit filed by the opposite party No.2 Ex.RW2/A and statement of account Ex.R2/1, an amount of Rs.3961.01 and Rs.53754.60 i.e. total Rs.57716/- has already been received by the opposite party No.2 on account of compensation towards damage to crops of complainant on 07.07.2017 and 21.09.2017 respectively and the same has been adjusted towards the loan amount. Hence the same would be deducted from the alleged loss amount.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.75000/- less Rs.57716/- i.e. to pay Rs.17284/-(Rupees seventeen thousand two hundred and eighty four only) towards loss of crops alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.07.06.2017 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
27.09.2019
...................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………………
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
…………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
