BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.262 of 2018.
Date of institution: 26.09.2018.
Date of decision:03.01.2020.
Sukhdev S/o Sh. Ram Chander R/o Village Garhi Mohalla Rajaund, Tehsil Rajaund, Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- ICICI Lombard, Insurance Company, 2nd Floor, 972/11, near Khurana Palace, RKSD College Ambala Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
- Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rajaund, Distt. Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Suresh Malik, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. A.K.Khurania, Advocate for the OP.No.1.
Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the Op No.2.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and own agriculture land measuring 10 acres within the revenue estate of Village Rajaund, Distt. Kaithal. It is alleged that in the year 2017 the complainant had sown paddy crops in his land and also insured the same with the Ops vide Govt. Scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” and an amount of Rs.5448/- as insurance premium was deducted by the Op No.2 from his KCC account No.00515110000970 in lieu of said crop insurance. It is further alleged that the paddy crops of complainant in 10 acres was damaged/ruined due to heavy rain and flow water. The complainant approached the Deputy Agriculture Officer, kaithal on 27.09.2017 and on 03.10.2017 Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Rajaund, who made a team to inspect the fields of complainant and the committee submitted the report that the paddy crop cultivated by the complainant was damaged upto 90-95% in 10 acres land due to heavy rain. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately. Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant is not consumer of answering Op, hence this complaint is not maintainable against the answering Op; that the present complaint is bad on account of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties because the Govt./Administration concerned are necessary parties; that the complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct. The complainant alleged that he has approached the Ops with regard to the loss of crop but no date of loss and when he has approached to whom not mentioned by him. The complainant never approached the answering Op and no claim was ever lodged by the complainant with the answering Op and as such, the answering Op did not depute any surveyor because the reason that no any claim was lodged by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the premium amount of Rs.5448.30 was debited from OGC/KCC account (00515110000970) of complainant on 29.07.2017 and such premium amount was remitted to the Op No.1 in their account No.000405074649 with ICICI Bank through Electronic transfer bearing UTR No.-ORBCH17212027890 on 31.07.2017 itself alongwith premium amount of other farmers also; that the amount of premium qua 138 loanee farmers in the sum of Rs.2,86,041.43 paise alongwith list of loanee farmers (Including the complainant) was paid to Op No.1 on 31.07.2017 through Electronic Transfer vide UTR No.ORBCH 17212027890 for coverage of Kharif crops during the year 2017-18, hence, deficiency if any is on the part of Op No.2. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and closed the evidence. The complainant tendered into additional evidence documents Annexure-C1 to AnnexureC-5 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and thereafter, closed the evidence. The Op No.1 did not tender any document and closed his evidence in affirmative.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant has an account No.00515110000970 with the Op No.2 and the Op No.2 had insured the crop of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2017-18 with the Op No.1 and deducted an amount of Rs.5448.30 paise on 29.07.2017, as is clear from the statement of account Annexure-C1 and paid the same to the OP No.1 towards PMFBY. According to the complainant, the paddy crops of complainant in 10 acres was damaged/ruined due to heavy rain and flow water. The complainant approached the Deputy Agriculture Officer, kaithal on 27.09.2017 and on 03.10.2017 Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Rajaund, who made a team to inspect the fields of complainant and the committee submitted the report that the paddy crop cultivated by the complainant was damaged upto 90-95% in 10 acres land due to heavy rain.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. It is clear that the premium amount of Rs.5448.30 was debited from OGC/KCC account (00515110000970) of complainant on 29.07.2017 and such premium amount was remitted to the Op No.1 in their account No.000405074649 with ICICI Bank through Electronic transfer bearing UTR No.-ORBCH17212027890 on 31.07.2017 itself alongwith premium amount of other farmers also. It is also clear from the Annexure-R5 that the amount of premium qua 138 loanee farmers in the sum of Rs.2,86,041.43 paise alongwith list of loanee farmers (Including the complainant) was paid to Op No.1 on 31.07.2017 through Electronic Transfer vide UTR No.ORBCH 17212027890 for coverage of Kharif crops during the year 2017-18. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the Op No.2 submitted copy of order dt. 19.07.2019 passed by Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sukhwinder Singh bearing first appeal No.528 of 2019. The order titled as Sukhwinder Singh Vs. OBC etc. earlier was passed by this Forum on the same footings vide which the said complaint was allowed by this Forum against the Reliance General Insurance Company-Op No.2. Aggrieved with the said order of this Forum, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. filed the appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble State Commission vide order dt. 19.07.2019 dismissed the appeal. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2 rather it is Op No.1, who is deficient. It is clear from the document sum insured, premium and subsidy cluster-1 attached with the Annexure-R7 that the rate of insured paddy in Kaithal was Rs.62,500 (in hectare) which comes to Rs.25,300/- per acre. The contention of Op No.1 that the complainant never approached the Op No.1 and no claim was ever lodged by the complainant with the Op No.1 has no force because the complainant has placed on file the loss assessment report made by the office of Deputy Director Agriculture Annexure-C3. We have perused the loss assessment report wherein it is clear that the information regarding loss was given by the complainant on 27.09.2017 and the insured land is shown in the said report as 18 acres. The committee inspected the fields of complainant on 03.10.2017 and the loss was assessed upto 90-95% in 10 acres land. In this way, the complainant is entitled for Rs.22,770/- per acre (Rs.25,300x90%) and the total loss comes to Rs.2,27,700/- (Rs.22,770/-x 10 acre).
9. Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint against the Op No.1 and direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.2,27,700/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. for the defaulted period. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:03.01.2020.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
