Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/190/2019

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard - Opp.Party(s)

Love Kumar

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    190 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         16.05.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 03.08.2022

 

Jarnail Singh s/o Shri Virsa Singh, aged about 56 years, r/o village Thaska Ali, P.O. Mandheri, 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.

 

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

                   Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

                   Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte vide order dated 05.07.2019.

                    Shri Mukesh Kumar, ADA for Opposite Party No.4.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that complainant was having 8 acres of land at village Thaska Ali and having its account with OP No.3 bearing Account No.32063202860. 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 (for short “PMFBY”) for Khariff 2017, from OPs No.1 & 2 through OP No.3, after paying Rs.3411/- @Rs.434/- per acre on 30.05.2017. 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. Thereafter, complainant visited various times to the office of OPs to get the compensation, but all in vain, which is an act of 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 and 4 appeared, whereas, OP No.4 failed to appear before this Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05.07.2019 by this Commission.

4.                OPs No.1 & 2 in their written statement, stated that as per complaint, copy of loss of paddy crop has been effected in village Jhansa, District Kurukshetra due to the reason mentioned as heavy rain which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY scheme and no documentary evidence of any kind has been annexed with the complaint to prove the same. 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.

5.                The OP No.3 filed its written statement stating therein that in village Thaskali claim arises on the basis of average yield i.e. 2830.48 kgs per hectare while the threshold yield 3643.38 kg per hectare, 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. 

6.                We have learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant was having 8 acres of land at village Thaska Ali and having its account with OP No.3. The 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 for Khariff 2017, from OPs No.1 & 2 through OP No.3, after paying Rs.3411/- @Rs.434/- per acre on 30.05.2017. 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. Thereafter, complainant visited various times to the office of OPs to get the compensation, but all in vain.

8.                Learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that as per complaint, copy of loss of paddy crop has been effected in village Jhansa, District Kurukshetra due to the reason mentioned as heavy rain which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY scheme and no documentary evidence of any kind has been annexed with the complaint to prove the same. He further submitted, there is no privity of contract between the answering OPs No.1 & 2 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. 

9.                Learned ADA for the OP No.4 has argued that in village Thaskali claim arises on the basis of average yield i.e. 2830.48 kgs per hectare while the threshold yield 3643.38 kg per hectare, 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. 

10.              There is no dispute that the complainant was having a bank account bearing No.32063202860 with OP No.3 branch and on 30.05.2017, premium amount of Rs.3411/- was deducted towards PMFBY for his Khariff 2017 crop standing at village Thaska Ali, from OPs No.1 & 2 through OP No.3 vide copy of Passbook Ex.C-6.

11.              As per complainant, due to heavy rains in the month of August 2018 to September 2018, crops standing in about 8 acres of his land had been destroyed and in this regard, OP No.4 Agriculture Department assessed the loss to the tune of 100%, but the OPs failed to pay the same the claim amount, despite repeated requests by him. Whereas, on the other hand, the OPs No.1 & 2 mainly contended that there is no privity of contract between the answering OPs No.1 & 2 and the complainant, as it never received any premium qua the policy in question from the complainant.

12.              To support his contentions, complainant produced document Ex.C-6 i.e. copy of his Passbook of his account bearing No.32063202860, maintained with OP No.3 bank, and from perusal of second page of it, it is clear, an amount of Rs.3411/- was deducted on 30.05.2017, from the account of the complainant qua crop insurance under PMFBY, 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 or from OP No.3. Since it is now admitted fact that Rs.3411/- has been deducted, by the OP No.3, from the account of complainant qua the crop insurance, but as per OPs No.1 & 2, the same has been credited to them qua the crop insurance policy and now, only 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 05.07.2019, passed by this Commission. Assuming, had 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.C-6, and by not paying the premium to the OPs No.1 & 2 qua policy in question, is an act of gross deficiency in service, 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.

13.              In the complaint, complainant alleged, he sown paddy crop in 8 acres of land for the season 2017-18, which was completely destroyed due to rain. In this regard, complainant produced Village wise A. yield, Threshold Yield, Sum Insured and claim of Paddy crop under PMFBY for Kharif 2017-18 District Kurukshetra as Ex.C-3 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 8 acre       =       Rs.51669/-

                  

14.              So, in view of above calculation, the complainant is entitled to Rs.51669/- from OP No.3, for the loss suffered by him.

15.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OP No.3 and dismiss the same against OPs No.1, 2 & 4. We direct OP No.3 to make the payment of Rs.51669/-. 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.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:03.08.2022.   

 

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)                

          (Neelam)                                                               President,

          Member.                                                                DCDRC, Kurukshetra.

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.