Haryana

Kaithal

12/20

Dharam Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental insurance co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Harpal Singh Duhan

01 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.12/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 08.01.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:01.08.2023.

Dharam Pal age about 63 years son of Hari Chand, resident of Village Dohar, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

…Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager, Branch Office, Karnal Road, Opp. I.G.College Kaithal-136027 (Haryana), Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
2. Agriculture Department Kaithal having its Office 2^nd floor, Mini Secretariat, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
3. State Bank of India, Siwan, Distt. Kaithal through its Manager.

 

 

..OPs.

        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. H.S.Duhan, Advocate, for the complainant.   

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

                Sh. D.R.Saini, Adv. for the OP No.2.

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

               

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Dharam Pal-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 co-sharer of 4.25 land, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.85502880390 with the OP No.3.  The OP No.3 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of Kharif (paddy) for the period 2018-19 with the OP No.1 and had deducted the amount of Rs.2415/- on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in that area on 24.09.2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant reported the matter to the OPs and on the above-said complaint No.HR/9/35/88/DK, the survey report was prepared by the OP No.2 and as per the above-said survey report, the paddy crop of complainant in 4.25 acres agriculture land has been damaged.  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 statement raising preliminary objections that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Dohar, District Kaithal, due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy Rain Fall” which 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.  In the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for loss of paddy crop of Village Dohar, District Kaithal.  However, as per data uploaded on NCI Portal by bank, the alleged land of Village Dohar related to complainant is not insured under the scheme with the answering OP.  In fact as per portal, the land of village Sirta was insured in the name of Dharam Pal s/o Hari Chand.  So, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.  However, it is made clear that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the 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; 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.

4.             OPs No.3 filed the written statement 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 was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2017-18 & 2018-19 and such premium amount was remitted to OP No.1 in their account No.024800210002658 of PNB through NEFT No.SBIN118219703469 on 31.07.2018 itself alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Soft copy of consolidated detailed list of farmers/proposals/declarations pertaining to different villages (who were loanee farmer of SBI Siwan) including that of present complainant were prepared by OP No.3 and same was also submitted to OP No.1 on 31.07.2018.  Since OP No.1 had already received premium amount on behalf of present complainant on 31.07.2018 itself alongwith consolidated list of farmers/proposals/declarations pertaining to present complainant also, so, OP No.1 was under legal obligation to issue respective crop insurance cover in favour of complainant to process as to adjudicate their claim, if any, as per Operational Guidelines of PMFBY, Insurance law, law of contract and notification dt. 17.06.2016 as per crop insurance policy.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R3 to Annexure-R6 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

7.             We have heard 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 co-sharer of 4.25 land, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is further argued that the complainant has an account No.85502880390 with the OP No.3.  The OP No.3 got insured the crop of complainant under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the crop of Kharif (paddy) for the period 2018-19 with the OP No.1 and had deducted the amount of Rs.2415/- on 31.07.2018 as insurance premium amount.  It is further argued that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in that area on 24.09.2018 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined.  The complainant reported the matter to the OPs and on the above-said complaint No.HR/9/35/88/DK, the survey report was prepared by the OP No.2 and as per the above-said survey report, the paddy crop of complainant in 4.25 acres agriculture land has been damaged.  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 has argued that the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Dohar, District Kaithal, due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy Rain Fall” which 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.  In the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for loss of paddy crop of Village Dohar, District Kaithal.  However, as per data uploaded on NCI Portal by bank, the alleged land of Village Dohar related to complainant is not insured under the scheme with the answering OP.  In fact as per portal, the land of village Sirta was insured in the name of Dharam Pal s/o Hari Chand.  So, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed.  In this regard, ld. counsel for the OP No.2-insurance company has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank etc. Vs. Singam Siva Sankar Reddy etc. 2015(4) CLT 545 decided by Hon’ble National Commission and Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. Vs. Sri Chikkala Satyanarayana, 2017(4) CPJ 1 decided by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission.          

10.            Ld. G.P. for the OP No.2 argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.  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.           

11.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.3 argued that the policy-holder is to deposit the amount of premium with the OP-bank transfers the same in the account of insurance company as such, the OP No.3-bank is only the collecting agent of OP No.1, who after collecting the premium amount use to transfer the same in the account of insurance company.

12.            The main contention of ld. counsel for the OP No.1-insurance company is that as per portal the land of village Sirta was insured in the name of Dharam Pal s/o Hari Chand, whereas the complainant is claiming for loss of paddy crop on land situated in Village Dohar.  He has burdened the liability upon the bank-OP No.1.  To rebut the said contention, ld. counsel for the OP No.3-bank has vehemently contended that the Op No.3-bank had deducted the premium amount and remitted to OP No.1-isnurance company and premium was retained by the OP No.1, so, OP No.1 is liable to pay the claim amount, if any, to the complainant.  He has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Irawali etc. decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 07.05.2014 bearing revision petition No.783 of 2008, wherein in para No.28 of the said judgment, it is mentioned that “Counsel for the petitioner failed to explain the provision, guidelines or scheme under which they had asked for provisional premium of Rs.60,000/-.  They also failed to explain how the money was kept in deposit till Jan., 2003.  It was not the bank who was taking insurance.  They had merely forward the premium amount on behalf of the respondent.  Counsel for petitioner could show no evidence that the respondents had been informed at any point of time that their proposal for insurance had not been accepted and the reasons thereof.”  The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case, whereas the authorities submitted by ld. counsel for the OP No.1 are not distinguishable but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case.  

            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.3 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.3 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.3 bank regarding any discrepancy in this regard and kept the premium amount with it, 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.9380.44 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 4.25 loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.39,867/- (Rs.9380.44 paise x 4.25 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.39,867/- to the complainant 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 respondent 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.:01.08.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.