Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 140.
Instituted on : 06.03.2017.
Decided on : 17.07.2019.
Rajbir s/o Sh. Khushi Ram R/o Village-Chamar, Teh. & Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Oriental Bank of Commerce, Brahmanwas, Distt. Rohtak through its Manager.
- ICICI Lombard GIC Company Ltd. 4TH Floor Rear Side, Red Fort Capital Porscunch Tower, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Gol Market, New Delhi-110001 through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Jai Karan Khatri, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Yogesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is co-sharer in the agricultural land comprised in Khewat No.18 Khatoni No.26, Khewat No.206 Khatoni no.198, Khewat No.340 and Khewat No.17 KhatoniNo.27 and Khewat no.18 & 19 situated within revenue estate of village-Dhamar and village Kahni, Tehsil and District Rohtak. The complainant has availed a loan under KCC from opposite party No.1 through his account No.04495111001900. That the bank got insured the paddy crop of the complainant under their PMFBY scheme from respondent no.2 in the year 2016 and premium of Rs.3093/- was deducted from his account. That no documents of policy were handed over to the complainant by both the parties. The complainant sown paddy crop in 6½ acres of land and spent about Rs.130000/- for growing the paddy crop. That the paddy crop of 4 acres has been completely damaged and the complainant intimated the respondent no.1 through his application dated 15.10.2016 and also informed the opposite party no.2 but till today no survey has been done. That the act of opposite parties of lingering on the lawful claim of insured crop of complainant is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. That complainant served a legal notice dated 25.10.2016 to the opposite parties but to no effect. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.200000/- alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the paddy crops of the complainant, the amount of Rs.3093/- has been credited in the account of respondent no.2 through NEFT for the PMFBY scheme. The liability, if any, is held, then respondent no.2 being insurer is liable to pay the same. On merits, it is submitted that the answering respondent on receiving the intimation on 15.10.2016, forwarded the same to the insurance company. That the complainant failed to submit the Girdawari of the land. No assessment of loss assessed by the expert has been submitted by the complainant. No survey has been conducted by the respondent no.2 which is a sheer negligence on the part of respondent no.2. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that complainant has not provided any documentary proof regarding his land. However, it is necessary that every farmer who wants to get the benefits of KCC then he should have compulsorily get the insurance under the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Suraksha Bimna Yojana”. That the loss intimated after 48 hours cannot be entertained as per the Insurance policy terms and conditions of scheme of PMFBY, in which the captioned KCC is covered. That complainant has not provided any survey report regarding loss and any other proof to prove the damages of the alleged crops. It is also denied that the complainant spent Rs.130000/- for growing the alleged paddy crop. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence on dated 25.01.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 04.04.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has made a statement that reply already filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2 be read in evidence and closed his evidence on dated 06.05.2019.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case respondent no.1 placed on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. Ex.R1 is an annexure regarding villagewise and cropwise farmer list of Kharif 2016 and Ex.R3 is the account statement of complainant’s account. A bare perusal of this statement shows that an amount of Rs.3093/- has been deducted by the respondent no.1 on account of insurance amount under PMFBY April 2016 Kharif on dated 10.08.2016. Again an amount of Rs.2767.88 has been deducted on account of PMFBY Rabi 2017 on dated 30.12.2017. On the second page of Ex.R3, an amount of Rs.5464.40 has been credited in the account of the complainant on dated 07.09.2018 for claim under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. Meaning thereby, the respondent No.2 made an assessment regarding the loss suffered by the complainant in his fields. So after assessing the loss the respondent no.2 made a partly payment of Rs.5464/- to the complainant. But as per the complainant, he has suffered a loss of Rs.2 lacs in 4 ½ acres of land.
6. A bare perusal of Ex.R1 itself shows that respondent no.1 insured 61 kanals and 3 marla land of the complainant having sum insured for Rs.193312.40. As per the complainant, he suffered loss in 4½ acres i.e. in 36 kanals. Hence as per the sum insured, he is entitled for the amount of Rs.114385/- for 36 kanals. As the opposite party has already paid an amount of Rs. 5464/- to the complainant. Hence, the opposite party no.2 shall pay the remaining amount of Rs.108921/-(Rupees one lac eight thousand nine hundred twenty one only) to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 06.03.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
7. 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:
17.07.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
