Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/422/2018

Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombord General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Virender Jakhar

04 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.422 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.:  28.11.2018.                                                                         Date of Decision: 04.05.2023

1.Om Parkash 2 Ram Niwas sons of Shanker Lal resident of Manawali Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainants.

                                     Versus     

1. ICICI Lombard, Plot No.149, Forth Floor, Industrial Area, Phase - 1, near Hometel Hotel, Phase-1, Chandigarh.
2. State Bank of India near Red Light Chowk, G.T.Road, Fatehabad  District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                         Sh.Virender Jakhar, Advocate for complainant.                                         Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                  Sh.N.D.Mittal, Advocate for Op No.2.

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                  

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainants are owner in possession of land situated at village Manawali Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the details of which is mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint; that the complainants had sown cotton crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility; that the complainants got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.1/insurance company on 31.07.2016 and in this regard an amount of Rs.1646.26/- was debited from his account by Op No.2 as premium of the insurance in question, which was credited in the account of Op No.1; that the cotton crop of the complainants got damaged due to heavy rain fall, hailstorm and logging of water; that the concerned Agriculture Department has opined the loss of crop upto 70 % and further assessed the loss  to the tune of Rs.24000/- per hectare;  that despite several requests, the claim for damaged crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainants have suffered great financial losses. In the end, prayer has been made for allowing compensation for lost crops in sum of Rs.75600/- alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum. Rs.50,000/- have also been claimed towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. Any other claim on the discretion of this Commission has also been sought.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately. Op No.1, in its separate reply has taken several preliminary objections such as cause of action and locus standi etc. It has been further averred that the present complaint before this Commission is not maintainable  because the reason mentioned in the loss assessment report is not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable for any claim; that except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalised by government agencies and  the complainant should have approached DAC & FW Department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and decision of said department would have been binding on State Government/Insurance Company/Banks/farmers but instead of that the complainants had approached the District Consumer Commission (earlier Consumer Forum) with malafide intention by violating standard terms and conditions of the scheme. Further, the complainant had never given any intimation to the insurance company regarding any loss despite the fact that there is a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. It has been further averred that no proof of loss or weather report has been submitted with insurance company by the complainant and even quantification of loss cannot be determined in absence of necessary survey and there is no privity of contract between complainants and insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company.  Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

3.                          In the reply filed on behalf of Op No.2 several preliminary objections such as cause of action, estoppal and maintainability etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that amount of Rs.1263609.10 in respect of 434 farmers was remitted to ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. through demand draft No.800004092702 dated 02.08.2016 including the name of the complainants mentioned at Sr.No.102 of the list of farmers; that the claim, if any, was to be processed by the State Government and was to be paid by the Insurance company as  insurance premium amount was duly received and accepted by the insurance company; an amount of Rs.1646.26/- was debited on 09.01.2017 from the bank account of the complainant for premium of cotton crop and was remitted to the insurance company, therefore, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of bank. Other contentions have also been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.                                 

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant No.1 Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Sh.Amit Pannu, Chief Manager as Annexure R1 to Annexure R3 whereas no evidence on behalf of Op No.1 has been led despite availing sufficient opportunities, therefore, its evidence was closed by court order ib 24.02.2022.

6.                          We have heard oral final arguments from both sides and perused the case file minutely.

7.                          The grievance of the complainants is that their cotton crop got damaged but they have not received any insurance claim till today. The complainants in order to prove their case have placed on file copy of jamabandi for the year 2015-16, copy of statement of account Annexure C1 and assessment report qua the crop in village Manawali as Annexure C2. Op No.2/bank in its written statement has admitted that an amount of Rs.1646.26/- was deducted as insurance premium of the cotton crop of the land of the complainants.

8.               

 

 

 

          The complainants have alleged that the cotton crop of Kharif was damaged and the concerned department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.19304.55/- per hectare in village Manawali for loss of cotton crop as is evident in Annexure C2.  

9.                          Undisputedly, the insurance company had accepted the payment qua insurance premium of crop and did not make the claim when the insured crop had already been reportedly damaged, meaning thereby that op no.1/insurance company had accepted the premium without any objection and now when the damage to the crop of complainants has been caused, then op no.1/insurance company arbitrarily and illegally denying to pay the genuine claim of the complainants. So, the OP no.1 is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.1/insurance company only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainants and op no.2 is not found responsible in this regard. There is nothing on the file to show that the complainant had ever intimated about the loss to the Ops within stipulated period as per the guidelines of the government with regard to loss of crop, therefore, localized claim has been rejected.                        

10.                        In the report Annexure C2, the concerned Agriculture Department has assessed the yield loss to the tune of Rs.19304.55/- per hectare and the complainant has suffered loss in 3.44 hectare and it would be just and proper to give compensation to the complainant as assessed by the concerned agriculture department in its report for the insured crop only.

11.                        Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against OP No.1/insurance company with a direction as follows:

(1)                        To pay an amount of Rs.1,37,600/- as insurance claim amount on account of yield loss to the complainant for the damages of Rabi crop sown by him in 3.44 hectare.

(2)                        To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rs.Eleven Thousand) towards compensation for harassment and mental agony etc. suffered by the complainants as well as for litigation expenses.

                             The amount mentioned at Sr. No. (1) would carry simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the compliant till actual payment.  The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the entire amount mentioned at Sr. Nos. (1) & (2) above would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, no deficiency is found on the part of OP no. 2/bank, therefore, complaint against Op No.2/bank stands dismissed.  

12.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 01.05.2023

                                                                                               

          (K.S.Nirania)                       (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                              Member                               Member                                             President