Haryana

Kaithal

49/21

Kulbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Davinder Gorsi

30 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 49 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:   02.03.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:      30.11.2023.

 

Kulbir Singh s/o Shri Hardeep Singh, r/o H.No.03, village Baupur, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. The Oriental Insurance Company, Dhand Road, Kaithal, through its Divisional Manager.
2. Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal Office at Secretariat, Kaithal.

...Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

                  

Present:       Shri Devinder Gorsi, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri Sudeep Malik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Sunil Kumar, PO, Rep. for Opposite Party No.2.

                  

ORDER  - NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that complainant is an agriculturist and cultivating on contract basis 136 kanal 0 marla situated in village Baupur. OP No.1 got insured his crop under the scheme Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) of khariff 2018 and rabi/wheat 2019 with OP No.1 and had deposited total Rs.14751.33 as insurance premium with total sum insured of Rs.484460.55. During the khariff and rabi season of 2018-19, he had sown paddy crop on his agricultural land, but due to untimely heavy rainfall and logging of heavy rainy water in the area in the month of October 2018, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined and on his intimation, OP No.2 assessed 65-70% damage of paddy crop in 17 acres of insured land. He 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.    

3.             Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and filed their respective written statements.

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement raised preliminary objections regarding No coverage of alleged loss; General Exclusions; Not maintainable for want of jurisdiction; Non intimation; Non submission of proof of loss or weather report; Limited Coverage as per scheme; Privity of Contract; Impleading of Necessary Parties; Complicated facts and law of contract; Right to file Amended reply etc. It is further submitted on merits that it is wrong that the complainant is having land measuring 17 acres on contract basis. However, admittedly the crop of complainant was insured with OP No.1. The crop of complainant was not damaged as alleged. No application for localized claim was received from complainant. Moreover, as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Government (Agriculture Department), the actual yield is more than the threshold yield, hence nothing is payable and since complainant failed to submit any application for localized claim, hence, same was also not payable and complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

5.                OP No.2, in its written statement stated that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and OP No.2. The other allegations, alleged in the complaint, are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

6.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8.

7.                On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R7. OP No.2 in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4.  

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is an agriculturist and cultivating on contract basis 136 kanal 0 marla situated in village Baupur. He further argued that OP No.1 got insured crop of complainant under the scheme Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) of khariff 2018 and rabi/wheat 2019 with OP No.1 and had deposited total Rs.14751.33 as insurance premium with total sum insured of Rs.484460.55. During the khariff and rabi season of 2018-19, complainant had sown paddy crop on his agricultural land, but due to untimely heavy rainfall and logging of heavy rainy water in the area in the month of October 2018, his paddy crop was damaged/ruined and on his intimation, OP No.2 assessed 65-70% damage of paddy crop in 17 acres of insured land. The complainant requested the OPs to pay the claim amount, but they did not do so.

10.              On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.1 argued that it is wrong that the complainant is having land measuring 17 acres on contract basis. However, admittedly the crop of complainant was insured with OP No.1. The crop of complainant was not damaged as alleged. No application for localized claim was received from complainant. Moreover, as per yield data (area wise data) provided by Government (Agriculture Department), the actual yield is more than the threshold yield, hence nothing is payable and since complainant failed to submit any application for localized claim, hence, same was also not payable and complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. 

11.              There is no dispute that the complainant is an agriculturist and owner of 1 acre of land in village Baupur, District Kaithal. There is also no dispute that the complainant had paid PMFBY premium of Rs.9689.21 for khariff season 2018 through online mode, for 6.5913 hectare i.e. above 16 acres of land vide Application Receipt No.040106180150546134401 Annexure C-5 and the status of the payment has been shown as “Successful” and Application Status was shown as “Approved” as is evident from Application Status document Annexure C-4.  

12.              The grievance of the complainant is that due to untimely heavy rainfall and logging of heavy rainy water in the area in the month of October 2018, his paddy crop was damaged and Agriculture department assessed the loss to the tune of 65-70% and he approached OP No.1 insurance company, various times, to release the claim amount, but nothing has been paid to him.

13.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has raised objection that complainant never intimated to the insurance company for loss of paddy crop. To rebut the said contention, learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the law, laid down in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Puran & Ors. 2021(2) CLT 171, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 19.12.2019, wherein, it is held by the Hon’ble National Commission that “Plea of insurance company that no privity of contract between petitioner and complainant and no intimation of loss given-Admittedly, premium for crop insurance came to be paid from accounts of complainant-Therefore, it cannot be said that complainant is not consumers of petitioner company-Further, in view of alleged failure to intimate loss to insurer, written version filed by HDFC Bank before District Commission shows that scheme did not envisage any such intimation-Therefore, revision petitions dismissed with liberty to petitioner company to avail such remedy as may be open to it in law against concerned Govt.”. The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case. So, in view of case law, the contention of OP No.1 that no intimation was given, by the complainant, regarding the loss, has no force, hence rejected.

14.              Learned counsel for OP No.1 has further raised objection that it is wrong that the complainant is having land measuring 17 acres on contract basis. To rebut the same, complainant has produced “Contract regarding Lease” dated 25.07.2018 Ex.C-2, made between complainant Kulbir Singh and one Hardayal Singh s/o Pritam Singh s/o Sundar Singh, r/o village Karhali Sahib, Tehsil and District Patiala, wherein, it is mentioned that the Hardayal Singh had given his 74 kanal 7 marla (about 9 acres) of land on lease to Kulbir Singh @Rs.30,000/- per acre from 25.07.2018 to 24.05.2019.

15.              Complainant further produced another “Contract regarding Lease” dated 25.07.2018 Ex.C-3, made between him and one Amrit Singh s/o Sardul Singh s/o Pritam Singh, r/o 66 Roz Avenue, Kheri Gujra Road, Patiala, wherein, it is mentioned that Amrit Singh had given his 55 kanal 19 marla (about 7 acres) of land on lease to Kulbir Singh @Rs.30,000/- per acre from 25.07.2018 to 24.05.2019.

16.              Complainant further produced Affidavit (Mark-X) of one Sarabjit Singh s/o Pritam Singh, r/o village Bopur, Distt. Kaithal, wherein, it is sworned by Sarabjit Singh is having common land with one Hardayal Singh, who is his brother and  has been died on 10.11.2019 and after his death, said land has been recorded in his name vide Intkaal No.1574. He further sworned that he has given the said on lease to Kulbir Singh (complainant), who paid the premium under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima and has no objection, if the compensation amount under the said scheme is given to Kulbir Singh. 

17.              Complainant also produced another Affidavit (Mark-Y) of one Amrit Singh s/o Sardul Singh s/o Pritam Singh, r/o H.No.68, Rage Avenue, Kheri Road, Patiala, wherein, it is sworned by Pritam Singh that he is having common land with one Hardayal Singh, who is uncle and has been died on 10.11.2019 and after his death, said land has been recorded in his name vide Intkaal No.1574. He further sworned that he has given the said on lease to Kulbir Singh (complainant), who paid the premium under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima and has no objection, if the compensation amount under the said scheme is given to Kulbir Singh.

18.              So, from perusal of above-mentioned documents Ex.C-2, Ex.C-3, Mark-X and Mark-Y, it is evident that the complainant had taken about 16 acres of land on lease during the khariff season 2018 and he was owner in possession of 1 acre, total 17 acres of land. The complainant also paid premium of said land for khariff season 2018 of PMFBY. So, in this regard the objection raised by learned counsel for OP No.1 that complainant was not having land measuring 17 acres on contract basis, has no force, hence rejected.

19.              Learned counsel for OP No.1 has further contended that the complainant has not given any intimation regarding the alleged to the insurance company, but from perusal of document Annexure R-3 i.e. Survey Form Format, we found that on its backside, there is duly mentioned Name and mobile number of Surveyor i.e. Baljinder Kumar and he also appended his signature therein in the next column. In the said format, there is also mentioned Name of Government Office as Dr. Vijay Pal along with his mobile number, who also appended his seal and signature in the next column of said format, which means representative of OP No.1 along with representative of agriculture department duly inspected the damaged crop/land of the complainant. So, in view of this Form Ex.R-3, the contention of learned counsel for OP No.1 that complainant has not given any intimation regarding the alleged loss, has no force, hence the same is also rejected. Moreover, since the complainant has made the payment of premium of PFMBY for khariff 2018 online, which was also approved as is evident from document Annexure C-4 and C-5 respectively, therefore, there was no need to implead the bank as party in the present case.  

20.              So far the liability is concerned; since 17 acres of land of complainant was insured under PMFBY for khariff season 2018 with OP No.1, as such, OP No.1 insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount, to the complainant, for the loss, suffered by him, due to destruction/damage of his crop.

21.              Now the question, which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? In the present case, the Agriculture Department has submitted three survey reports as Ex.R-1, Mark-A and Mark-B. On query, representative of OP No.2 Agriculture Department has submitted that Mark-B is the report, which was assessed on Individual Level, on the basis of intimation, received from the complainant, for 1 acre. He further submitted that Annexure R-1 has been submitted, by OP No.2 inadvertently, and it should be not considered and the correct report is Mark-A, which was prepared on Village Level i.e. Baupur of other framers of said village including the complainant. So, keeping in the view above submissions, for 1 acre, complainant is entitled the claim amount @ Rs.12,830.40 (Mark-B), and for remaining 16 acres, he is entitled the claim amount @ Rs.9,884.16 per acre i.e. Rs.1,58,146.56. Hence, for loss of total 17 acres, complainant is entitled for the total amount of Rs.1,70,976.96 (12,830.40 + 1,58,146.56), which shall be paid, by OP No.1 insurance company, to the complainant.        

22.              Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.1,70,976.96, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization, within 45 days, from today. OP No.1-Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-, on account of physical harassment and mental agony, suffered by the complainant as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges, to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.     

23.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings 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 records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:30.11.2023.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.