Haryana

Kaithal

369/19

Balbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental insurance co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Varun Kr Jaglan

20 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.369 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 18.11.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:20.07.2023.

Balbir son of Surjan aged 43 years, resident of Village Kaman Patti, Jakholi, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Oriental General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kurukshetra Road, near IDBI Bank, Kaithal, Pin Code-136027 through its Branch Manager.
2. Punjab National Bank, Branch Jakholi, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Kaithal.
   1.  

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

               

Present:     Sh. V.K.Jaglan, Adv. for the complainant.   

                Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

Sh. Dinesh Kumar Dhull, Adv. for the OP No.2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, Govt. Pleader for the OP No.3. 

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Balbir-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

1.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned 100 Kanals 0 marla, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint, situated in Village Jakholi, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.071400800019437 with the OP No.2.  The OP No.2 got insured the Rice breed 1121 of the complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the OP No.1 and had deducted the amount of Rs.7503.04 paise as insurance premium amount on 31.07.2018.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  It is further alleged that 12½ acres of rabi crops of complainant suffered 80 to 90% losses.  Thus, the complainant has suffered financial losses to the tune of Rs.19.8 quintal per acre and in this way, the complainant has suffered financial loss of Rs.8,66,250/- i.e. (Rs.3500x19.8) x 12.5  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.1.  The complainant requested the OPs to pay the claim amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.        Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  OP No.1 filed the written version mentioning therein that as per averments of the complaint, the complainant took insurance for rice crop but due to rainfall, the loss of rabi crop has been affected in Village Jakholi, District Kaithal due to the procedure best known to complainant that how he converted rice crop into rabi crop and claim for compensation.  The reason for loss mentioned as “Heavy Rain Fall” has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme and to prove the same, no documentary proof of any kind has been annexed with the complaint; that role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institutions that are part of this scheme; that in fact the complainant is not insured with the answering OP as his bank has not uploaded the data of complainant on National Crop Insurance Portal of Govt. of India or supplied any proposal form etc. to the answering OP; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering OP.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

3.             OP No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the premium amount of Rs.7503.04 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2017 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.1, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             OP No.3 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the fields of complainant as-well-as other farmers were inspected by the officials of answering OP randomly on the basis of village level.  The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4, OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R5 & Annexure-R6, OP No.3 tendered into evidence Ex.RW3/A and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

7.             We have heard the both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned 100 Kanals 0 marla situated in Village Jakholi, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.  It is further argued that the complainant has an account No.071400800019437 with the OP No.2.  The OP No.2 got insured the Rice breed 1121 of the complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the OP No.1 and had deducted the amount of Rs.7503.04 paise as insurance premium amount on 31.07.2018.  It is further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  It is further argued that 12½ acres of rabi crops of complainant suffered 80 to 90% losses.  Thus, the complainant has suffered financial losses to the tune of Rs.19.8 quintal per acre and in this way, the complainant has suffered financial loss of Rs.8,66,250/- i.e. (Rs.3500x19.8) x 12.5  The complainant instantly reported the matter to OP No.3, who in return inspected the agricultural fields of village of complainant alongwith officials of OP No.1.  The complainant requested the OPs to pay the claim amount but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

9.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-Insurance Company has argued that the complainant took insurance for rice crop but due to rainfall, the loss of rabi crop has been affected in Village Jakholi, District Kaithal due to the procedure best known to complainant that how he converted rice crop into rabi crop and claim for compensation.  It is further argued the reason for loss mentioned as “Heavy Rain Fall” has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme and to prove the same, no documentary proof of any kind has been annexed with the complaint; that role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institutions that are part of this scheme.  It is further argued that in fact the complainant is not insured with the OP No.1 as his bank has not uploaded the data of complainant on National Crop Insurance Portal of Govt. of India or supplied any proposal form etc. to the OP No.1.

10.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-bank has argued that the premium amount of Rs.7503.04 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2017 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.1, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any.    

11.            Sh. Pushpinder Singh, GP for the OP No.3-Agriculture Department has stated that the claim does not arise on average yield because in the present case, average yield is greater than threshold yield.  He has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT at the time of arguments, which is Mark-A on the file.   

12.            During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has stated that premium amount of Rs.7503.04 paise has already been refunded to the OP No.2-bank on 28.05.2019 as per Annexure-R3.  From the facts and record, it is clear that the premium amount of Rs.7503.04 paise alongwith premium amount of other farmers was remitted by OP No.2-bank with the OP No.1-insurance company on 31.07.2018.  The insurance company retained the crop insurance premium of complainant for approximately one year and then they have returned the premium amount without any logical reason and even date of alleged loss of crop has already been passed.  If there was any discrepancy in the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) etc. of the farmers concerned, then it was required for the OP No.1 insurance company to refund back the said amount, within two months of cutoff date to the OP No.2 bank, but nothing has been done on the part of OP No.1 and this Commission rely upon in this regard on “Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 30.03.2018” and its Clause No.19 “Other Conditions” sub-Clause xxii is relevant, which reads as under:-

“xxii) The Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the Insurance Company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim”.  

13.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was the required for OP No.1 insurance company to refund back the premium of amount of farmers concerned to OP No.2 bank after pointing out any discrepancy on its end, within the period of cut off date of two months, but in the case in hand, OP No.1 had neither raised any objection within the period of cutoff date of two months nor intimated to OP No.2 bank regarding any discrepancy in this regard and kept the premium amount with it about one year, and now at the time when crops of complainant was destroyed and he is demanding the claim amount, as per policy from it, then OP No.1 refused to pay the same on this flimsy ground, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. As such, the OP No.1 insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to destruction of his crop.

14.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.10098.95 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 12.5 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.1,26,237/- (Rs.10098.95 paise x 12.5 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1-Insurance Company.        

15.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.1,26,237/- after deducting the premium amount of Rs.7503/- which they have already paid to the complainant through OP No.1-bank on 09.09.2019 as per Annexure-R6, which becomes Rs.1,18,734/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  The OP No.1-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against OP No.1-insurance company and dismissed against Ops No.2 & 3.     

16.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP No.1 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. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.07.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.