Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/381/2019

Pala Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Jindal

02 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    381 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         28.08.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 02.05.2022

 

Pala Ram s/o Shri Chamela Ram, aged about 49 years, r/o VPO Bhorakh, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
2. State Bank of India, Thol, District Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director Department of Agriculture & FW, Government of Haryana, Sector-7, Kurukshetra.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Love Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.                  

                   Shri R.K. Singhal, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte, vide order dated 07.10.2019.

                   Shri Garv Bathla, Project Officer for Opposite Party No.3.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant was having about 3 acres of land at village VPO Harigarh Bhorakh, District Kurukshetra and having his account bearing No.33864266544, with OP No.2. He sown paddy crop in the season 2018-19 on his 3 acres of land and got insured the same under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna from OP No.1, through OP No.2, after paying premium of Rs.1628.76 on 31.07.2018. He sown paddy crop in his said land after incurring Rs.10,000/- per acre on preparation of fields for crops, paniri, electricity bills etc.  There were heavy rains in the area during the period of August 2018 to September 2018, due to which, crops standing in the fields had been destroyed. Thereafter, the complainant duly informed regarding this loss to the OPs and a team consisting of officials of OPs visited the spot and after verifying the same, it being reported that 100% crop of above 3 acres was destroyed. He visited many times to the OPs to get the compensation of loss of crop, but till today, no compensation was paid to him nor issued any repudiation letter to him, 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 complaint, its notice was ordered against all the OPs.

4.                OP No.1 appeared before the Commission and filed its written statement raising preliminary objections regarding No Coverage of alleged loss; Objective of Scheme; Coverage of Farmers; Coverage of Crops; General Exclusion; Not maintainable for want of jurisdiction; Non Intimation; Non submission of proof of loss or weather report; Limited Coverage as per scheme; Yield based claims are decided by Government; No Survey, no quantification of loss; privity of contract; Impleading of necessary parties; Complicated facts and law of contract; impleading of necessary parties; Right to file amended Reply reserved and Not covering date of loss. On merits, it is submitted that the policy had been issued by the OP No.1 for the farmers on the basis of insurance premium deposited by the OP No.2 within the stipulated period and in the present case, no insurance premium for the insurance of complainant’s crop was paid by the OP No.2 to OP No.1 within stipulated period, thus, crop of complainant was not insured with the OP No.1. As per data available on the Portal of Govt. of India, duly filled by OP No.2, no insurable amount had been paid to the OP No.1 in lieu of insurance of crop of complainant. Moreover, crop of complainant had also not damaged in any manner. Thus, present complaint is not maintainable against the OP No.1, as the crop was not insured with it and was also not damaged. The complainant had not produced on record copy of insurance policy and in the absence of policy particulars like policy number, date of issuance and expiry of policy and its insurance area, the OP No.1 cannot be held liable at all. The complainant was not a consumer qua the OP No.1 insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

5.                On receipt of notice of complaint, OP No.2 failed to appear before this Commission, either, in person or through any advocate on 07.10.2019, as such, it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte, on that date, by this Commission.

6.                The OP No.3, in its written statement stated in village Bhorakh, claim arised on the basis of average yield as per CCEs average yield found 199.446 k.g. per hectare while the Threshold yield 3500 per k.g. hectare as CCEs, that’s why claim arised Rs.31616.34 per hectare. Further, report was sent timely to the Director General Agriculture and F.W., Haryana for settlement of claim. The farmer never gave any intimation to the OP No.3.

7.                The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence.

8.                On the other hand, the OP No.1, in support of its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 and closed its evidence. The OP No.3, in support of its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and closed its evidence.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

10.              Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant sown paddy crop in the season 2018-19 on his 3 acres of land and got insured the same under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna, from OP No.1, through OP No.2, after paying premium of Rs.1628.76 on 31.07.2018. He further argued that the complainant sown paddy crop in his said land after incurring Rs.10,000/- per acre.   There were heavy rains in the area during the period of August 2018 to September 2018, due to which, crops standing in the fields had been destroyed and the complainant duly informed regarding this loss to the OPs and a team consisting of officials of OPs visited the spot and after verifying the same, it being reported that 100% crop of above 3 acres was destroyed. The complainant visited many times to the OPs to get the compensation of loss of crop, but till today, no compensation was paid to him nor issued any repudiation letter to him, this way, the OPs are deficient in services.

11.              Learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that no insurance premium for the insurance of complainant’s crop was paid by the OP No.2 to OP No.1 within stipulated period, thus, crop of complainant was not insured with the OP No.1. As per data available on the Portal of Govt. of India, duly filled by OP No.2, no insurable amount had been paid to the OP No.1 in lieu of insurance of crop of complainant. Moreover, crop of complainant had also not damaged in any manner. Thus, present complaint is not maintainable against the OP No.1, as the crop was not insured with it and was also not damaged. The complainant had not produced on record copy of insurance policy and in the absence of policy particulars like policy number, date of issuance and expiry of policy and its insurance area, the OP No.1 cannot be held liable at all and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

12.              Project Officer for OP No.3, argued that in village Bhorakh, claim arised on the basis of average yield as per CCEs average yield found 199.446 k.g. per hectare while the Threshold yield 3500 per k.g. hectare as CCEs, that’s why claim arised Rs.31616.34 per hectare. Further, report was sent timely to the Director General Agriculture and F.W., Haryana for settlement of claim. The farmer never gave any intimation to the OP No.3.

13.              From the arguments and pleadings of the parties, now there are two moot questions before this Commission, which required to be answered by this Commission. Firstly, as to whether the OP No.1 insurance company had ever received any premium, qua the crop insurance policy in question, from the OP No.2, as such, there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant on the one hand and the OP No.1 on the other hand? Secondly, if question No.1 is proved, then as to whether the complainant is entitled to the relief, as claimed or to what extent and against whom?

14.              Coming to the first question, as to whether the OP No.1 insurance company had ever received any premium, qua the crop insurance policy in question, from the OP No.2 or not. The OP No.1 denied to receive any premium qua the crop insurance policy in question, from the OP No.2, therefore, the burden to prove the same, was upon the complainant as well as OP No.2. In this regard, the complainant produced Statement of Account Ex.C-1 of his account bearing No.33864266544, maintained with OP No.2, and from perusal of it, it is clear that on 31.07.2018, an amount of Rs.1628.76 was deducted, by the OP No.2, from the account of the complainant, qua crop insurance policy. Since the OP No.1 insurance company denied to receive any premium qua the crop insurance policy in question, from the OP No.2, therefore, now the burden to prove the same was solely on the OP No.2, but OP No.2, instead of appearing before the Commission and prove that it had debited the premium amount to the OP No.1, deducted from the account of the complainant, OP No.2 was not appeared before this Commission and proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 07.10.2019, passed by this Commission. Non-appearance of OP No.2, despite receipt of notice from this Commission, further strengthen the case of the OP No.1 and this Commission left with no other option except to believe the version of OP No.1 regarding non-receiving the premium qua the crop policy in question. Since the contention of OP No.1 that it had not received any premium qua crop policy in question, is believed, then there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the OP No.1 on the one hand and the complainant on the other hand. By not crediting the premium amount, to the OP No.1, by the OP No.2, qua the crop insurance policy in question, it is an act of gross deficiency in service, on the part of the OP No.2, being a Corporate Body. Assuming, if the OP No.2 credited the premium amount qua the crop insurance policy in question, to the OP No.1, then the crop policy in question would have been in force and the complainant is entitled to get all the benefits which he should have got under this crop policy in question and the same shall be solely paid by OP No.2, to the complainant, being deficient one.

15.              In the complaint, complainant alleged, he sown paddy crop in 3 acres of land for the season 2018-19, which was completely destroyed due to rain. Burden to prove this fact was also upon the OP No.2 and as already mentioned, it failed to appear before this Commission, therefore, this Commission has left with no other option except to believe the contention of the complainant that he had sown paddy crop in 3 acres of his land for the season 2018-19. Complainant produced Village wise yield, threshold yield, sum insured and claim of paddy crop under PMFBY for Kharif 2018-19 as Ex.C-6, and in that document at Sr. No.22, claim amount for village Bhorak (complainant’s village) was Rs.31616.34 per hectare. Moreover, this fact was also corroborated by the OP No.3 in its reply.

          Claim amount of village Bhorak       =       Rs.31616.34 per hectare

          1 Hectare                                           =       2.47 acre

          Rs.31616.34 / 2.47                                     =       Rs.12800 per acre

          Rs.12800 x 3 acres                                     =       Rs.38400/-

                  

16.              So, in view of above calculation, the complainant is entitled to receive claim amount of Rs.38,400/- from the OP No.2, as per crop insurance policy in question, for the loss suffered by him due to destroy of his paddy crop in the season 2018-19.

17.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OP No.2 only, and dismiss the same against OPs No.1 & 3, and direct the OP No.2, to make the payment of Rs.38,400/- to the complainant. The OP No.2 is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to deficiency in services, on the part of the OP No.2, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OP No.2 is 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 shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act, against the OP No.2. 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:02.05.2022.

    

 

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.