Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 288.
Instituted on : 09.05.2017.
Decided on : 11.06.2019.
Satbir Singh age 55 years, son of Sh. Mange Ram resident of village Kiloi Dopana Tehsil and District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance company Ltd., Plot no.149, Phase-1 Industrial Area, Chandigarh.
- Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Branch Kiloi Teh. & Distt. Rothak. Through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.B.Vashisth, 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 measuring three Acres in village Kiloi Dopana Teh. & Distt. Rohtak. That complainant got his above said land insured under “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna’ with respondent no.1 through respondent no.2. That the complainant is having bank account no.80540100003470 with opposite party No.2. That premium of Rs.758.78 and Rs.667.73 were deducted from the alleged bank account of the complainant on 29.07.2016 and 10.01.2017 respectively. That the risk was covered at the rate of Rs.25000/- per acre. That the complainant had sown paddy crops in his above said land of three acres and same was destroyed completely due to ‘Jal Bharav’ and complainant sent the information of damage on 15.11.2016 and a committee was instituted who surveyed the land of complainant and assessed the loss to the extent of 80%. That complainant approached the respondents and requested to make the payment of loss of crops to the complainant but the respondents have been delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. 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 party No.1 may kindly be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.75000/- as damages of crops alongwith Rs.10,000/- as damages for unnecessary harassment 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 till date the complainant has not provided any documentary proof regarding his land and loss of the crop. 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. Moreover, the intimation regarding the said loss was given very late in the month of October and that also without any documentary proof. 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 there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that amount of premium was paid from the loan account of the complainant and not from the saving account. As per loan documents, the following amount was paid as premium for insurance of crop:
0.607 Hectare Paddy Rs.758.78/- on 29.07.2016,
0.785 Hectare Cotton Rs.667.73 on 29.07.2016
0.795 Hectare wheat Rs.667.74 on 10.01.2017
That complainant has not given any intimation to the answering respondent regarding damage to his crop. That answering opposite party has no concern with payment of compensation because the same is to be paid by the respondent no.1. That as per account statement, an amount of Rs.1900.66/- has been received on account of compensation of paddy crop. 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.C1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.12.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence on 03.04.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/2 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present complaint, the complainant pleaded that he has suffered loss in his three acres of agricultural land. He sown paddy crops in his fields and due to ‘Jal Bharav’ the complainant’s crops damaged and regarding this fact the respondents officials constitute a committee, who surveyed the loss in the crops and submitted his report with the respondent officials. As per the report Ex.C3, four farmers suffered loss in their fields including the complainant. The complainant also placed on record document Ex.C2. This document was prepared by the Sub Divisional Officer, Agriculture Department and the report was submitted to Sub Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department on 13.12.2016. As per this document the complainant suffered loss in his paddy crops. In the present case complainant has a bank account with the respondent no.2 and his bank account no. is 80548800008430 and he has also Kisan Credit Card No. 80540100003470 through which his land was hypothecated with the bank. As per Ex.C1 an amount of Rs.758.78P has been deducted from his account on dated 29.07.2016 and Rs.667.73P on dated 29.07.2016 for Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. Meaning thereby, the complainant’s crop was insured through respondent no.1 and amount of premium had already been deducted from the account of complainant and paid to the respondent No.1 by the respondent no.2. In the present case the respondent no.2 filed his written statement as well as affidavit. The bare perusal of the written statement shows that an amount of Rs.1900/- has been received in the account of complainant as compensation of the paddy crops from the respondent No.1. Meaning thereby, the loss was assessed and the payment was made by the respondent no.1 through respondent no.2. So it is established that the complainant’s crop was damaged due to ‘Jal Bharav’ and same amount was paid by the respondent no.1 to the complainant. Moreover, the respondent no.2 has also submitted that only 0.607 hectare land was insured for the paddy crops and for this insurance an amount of Rs.758.78P has been deducted from the account of complainant on 29.07.2016. Meaning thereby the respondent no.1 had insured only 1.5 acre land of the complainant for paddy crops. But through this complaint, complainant has demanded the loss suffered by him in three acres of land. After bare perusal of the documents, written statement and affidavit filed by the opposite parties, we came to the conclusion that the complainant’s 0.607 hectare land was insured by respondent no.1. Meaning thereby 1.5 acre paddy crop was insured against the premium amount of Rs.758.78 P. In the present complaint respondent no.1 have not placed on record the assessment sheet of the loss calculated by the surveyor. Moreover, the respondent no.1 has submitted in his written statement that the intimation has been given belatedly by the complainant in the month of October without any documentary proof and has not disclosed any time and date of the loss in the claim petition, whereas as per the respondent no.2 they have received an amount of Rs.1900/- from the respondent no.1 as compensation for paddy crops. Meaning thereby, the loss was assessed by the respondent so respondent no.1 intentionally has not submitted the assessment and calculation sheet before the Forum. As such we came to the conclusion that complainant is entitled for loss suffered by him in 1.5 acres of land. As per complaint, he has demanded an amount of Rs.75000/- for damages in 3 acres of land. Accordingly he is entitled for Rs.37500/- for 1.5 acres of land less Rs.1900/- already received by him as comepsnation.
6. 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.37500/- less Rs.1900/- i.e. to pay Rs.35600/-(Rupees thirty five thousand six hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.09.05.2017 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.
7. 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:
11.06.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
