Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 367.
Instituted on : 18.09.2013.
Decided on : 21.06.2016.
Rajbir s/o Ramphal R/o Villag-Kharainti, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. C/o Hafed District Office, SCO 19-20 Part-1, Sector-12, Karnal through its Manager.
- IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Rohtak through its Manager.
- Prathmik Krishi Sahkari Samiti Ltd., village-Chandi, Distt. Rohtak through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.S.Gill, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.G.D.Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 & 2.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant is owner/co-sharer and in possession of agricultural land comprised in Khewat No.14/12, Khatoni No.14 to 17 total measuring 138 Kanals 14 Marlas situated within revenue estate of village-Kharainti, Distt. Rohtak. It is averred that complainant has availed loan from the Prathmik Krishi Sahkari Samiti Ltd./opposite party No.3 and opposite party no.1 & 2 asked the Samiti to get insured the crops of farmers who have availed loan from them as per the prevailing scheme in this regard and after considering their proposal and guidance the complainant has agreed to get insured his wheat crop during Rabi 2012-2013 and accordingly as per the guidelines of the officials of opposite party no.1 & 2 the opposite party no.3 bank has charged the insurance premium from complainant and got insured his 18 kanals 6 marlas land. It is averred that opposite parties assured that in case of damage of insured crops a sum of Rs.40000/- per hectare will he given to the owner of crop as compensation on account of damages. It is averred that in the year 2012-13 due to heavy rain in the area of village Kharinti the crop of wheat sown and got insured by the complainant has completely damaged and the Government has conducted a survey in this regard and verified that the wheat crop of the complainant has been damaged. It is averred that complainant intimated the opposite parties but the opposite parties are avoiding the same and are not paying the compensation of insured crop of the complainant. It is averred that complainant served a legal notice dated 29.06.2013 to the opposite parties and requested them to settle the claim. Opposite no.3 replied the same and stated that the liability to pay amount of compensation is of opposite party Insurance company. But the opposite party no.1 & 2 refused to pay any amount to the complainant. It is averred that the act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint may kindly be allowed and opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.20000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party no.1 & 2 in their reply has submitted that complainant has wrongly mentioned that in case of damage the sum insured of Rs.40000/- per hectare will be given to the owner of crop as compensation. It is averred that in fact the claim if any of the insured is governed by the Modified National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (Rabi) 2012-2013 and the certified yield date provided by the State govt. and the insurance policy proportionately. The complainant has wrongly interpreted the clause and filed a false and frivolous complaint. It is averred that as per the scheme Sh.Rajbir s/o Ramphal was insured to the extent of Rs.9350/- by charging a premium of Rs.187/- and the indemnity level was kept at 90% as fixed by the State Government in the Modified National Agricultural Scheme Rabi 2012-13. The claim of the insured owner of crop is governed by the aforesaid scheme and the certified yield date provided by the State Government, department of Agriculture Haryana and the insurance policy. It is averred that claim arises only if actual yield per hectare of insured crop for insurance unit in the insured season, falls short of specified threshold yield, as only then the farmers are deemed to have suffered shortfall of the yield, each of similar magnitude and the claim shall be in such proportion of the sum insured as the shortfall in yield (calculated by reducing the actual yield from threshold yield) bears to the Threshold Yield. It is averred that there is no shortfall in the yield and thus no claim arises in the present case. On merits it is averred that the complainant has not produced any evidence of having lodged any claim with the insurer. Hence the complainant has no substance and is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that legal notice dated 29.06.2013 was duly received only in respect of claim of Sh.Jagdish s/o Sh. Pirthi Singh, and the same was duly replied by the counsel of the opposite party vide registered letter dated 29.08.2013. No claim was maintainable under the insurance. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.3 in its written reply has submitted that as per notification of crops and areas for Rabi 2012-2013-Guidelines, insurance coverage is compulsory for all loanee farmers and accordingly, the complainant was asked for insurance which was done and the insurance premium was paid to opposite party no.1 and not to the answering opposite party. It is averred that in fact, in case of any damage to crop, the amount of compensation was to be paid by the opposite party no.1 and not by the answering opposite party. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 2 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and has closed his evidence. Opposite party no.3 made a statement that written statement already filed on behalf of opposite party no.3 be read in evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by ld. counsel for the opposite party no.1 & 2 as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case it is admitted by the opposite parties that the as per the scheme of Government Sh.Rajbir s/o Ramphal was insured to the extent of Rs.9350/- by charging a premium of Rs.187/- and the indemnity level was kept at 90% as fixed by the State Government in the Modified National Agricultural Scheme Rabi 2012-13. It is also not disputed that as per copy of jamabandi Ex.C5, complainant is owner of land as mentioned in the same and as per Khasra Girdawari Ex.C4, the crop of wheat sown by the complainant was destroyed. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that due to loss of crop he suffered a great loss and accordingly requested the opposite parties to compensate him as per policy and also served a legal notice upon the opposite parties but the same was repudiated by the opposite parties.
8. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party no.3 is that the insurance premium was paid to opposite party no.1 hence in case of any damage to crop, the amount of compensation was to be paid by the opposite party no.1 & 2. The contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party no.1 & 2 is that the claim of the insured owner of crop is governed by the scheme of the Government and the claim arises only if actual yield per hectare of insured crop for insurance unit in the insured season, falls short of specified threshold yield, but in the present case the threshold yield applicable to Kharanti village of Lakhan Majra block calculated on 90% indemnity level is 3939 kg/hec. The actual yield for Kharanti village being at 4105 kg/hec, hence there is no shortfall in the yield and thus no claim is payable in the present case. To prove its contention opposite parties have placed on record documents Ex.R5 & Ex.R6 showing the detail of insured, actual yield and threshold yield. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties have also placed on record copy of order dated 22.01.2009 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in revision petition no.1519 titled as Ajitsinh Malubhai Ghummad Vs. General Insurance Corp. of India Ltd. & Ors.
9. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the reply filed by the opposite party no.1 & 2 the actual yield in 2012-13 in Rabi Crop of wheat in village Kharanti was 4105 kg/hec but no such data has been mentioned in the alleged document Ex.R6. Moreover the alleged documents placed on record by the opposite party no.1 & 2 i.e. Ex.R5 & Ex.R6 are computer generated documents and therefore having no authenticity. It is also observed that no terms and conditions of the policy were supplied to the complainant. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in IV(2015)CPJ 376 (NC) titled as United India Insurance Vs. Dinaz Verevatwala & Anr. whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “No evidence that OPs ever supplied terms and conditions of group personal accident policy-Unfair trade practice proved-Repudiation not justified”, as per II(2016)CPJ 414(NC) titled as Vasant Indrabhan Tambe & Ors. Vs. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. & Ors. Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Premium was paid to Insurance Company through bank as provided in Clause 18 of scheme-State Government does not come in picture at all- Insurance company was terribly amiss in discharge of its duties-If crop cutting data was not sent by State Government they should have asked it and compelled it to do needful-Directions issued-Compensation granted to all farmers except one who has not come with clean hands”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that as the complainant was insured with the opposite parties, hence he is entitled for the claim as per insured amount. On the other hand, law cited above by ld. counsel for the opposite parties titled Ajitsinh Malubhai(Supra) is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Now for the assessment of loss , it is observed that as per the document Ex.C11 the premium for 1 hectare is Rs.720/- whereas as per reply filed by the opposite parties they have charged Rs.187/- as insurance premium from the account of complainant. As per document Ex.R5 and admitted by the opposite parties in their written reply, the complainant was insured for Rs.9350/-. As such the complainant is entitled for the insurance claim as per policy.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party no.1 & 2 shall pay an amount of Rs.9350/-(Rupees nine thousand three hundred fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 18.09.2013 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
11. 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:
21.06.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
