Haryana

Kaithal

221/20

Prithvi Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amarjeet Singh

08 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                Complaint No.: 221/2020.

                                                Date of institution:27.07.2020

                                                Date of decision:08.08.2023.        

 

Prithvi Singh son of Sh. Bhagwan aged 65 years, resident of Village Bhagal, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Oriental General Insurance Company Ltd,  Dhand Road Kaithal through its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager.
2. Dena Bank, Cheeka now merged in Bank of Baroda, Cheeka Branch through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Kaithal Room No. 103, Secretariat, Kaithal.                                                                                                                                                     ...Respondents.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection, Act,2019

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.   

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.                  

 

Present:     Sh. Dilbag Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh. M.R. Miglani, Advocate for OP No. 1.

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for OP No. 2.

                Sh. Pushpinder Saini, GP. Rep. for OP No. 3.

 

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

1.             Prithvi Singh, Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereifafter referred to as the Act) against the respondents.

2.             It is alleged in the complaint that complainant is permanent resident of village Bhagal, Tehsil Guhla and District Kaithal and as per Jamabandi attached by complainant which shows that the complainant is a agriculturist by profession and owned agricultural land situated at Village Bhagal, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.  He sown Paddy crop in the season of 2018 and and got insured his crop under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) for the year 2017-2018 with opposite party No. 1 i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and had also paid Rs. 3572.10/- as premium amount for the same through his account No. 154813031314 of DENA Bank, Cheeka which has been merged in Bank of Baroda, Cheeka Branch. There were heavy rains in the area, due to which, his standing paddy crops was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OP No. 3 thereafter concerned official of OP No. 3 visited the flood affected area and assessed 40% to 50% damage of paddy crops in collusion with the official of opposite party No. 1.  The officials assured the complainant to reimburse this loss within 1-2 months.  He visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but they failed to release the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their respective written statements.

4.             OP No.1, in its written statement that as per averments of the complaint the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Bhagal Tehsil & District Kaithal due to the reason for loss mentioned as Heavy Rain Fall which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY), Scheme and no documentary proof of alleged loss has been annexed with the complaint to prove the same. It is stated that as per guidelines of scheme immediate intimation was to be given within 48 hours but complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss  of crop in Village Bhagal within stipulated period.  There is no deficiency in service on their part, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

5.             OP No. 2 is his written statement specifically stated that the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  In the present complaint, the complainant is allegedly claiming for loss paddy crops of village Bhagal which was allegedly insured through respondent No. 1. It is further stated that the amount of premium of complainant in the sum of Rs.3,572.10/- along with premium of other loanee farmers as well as list of loanee farmers (including the complainant) and other required data was sent to OP No. 1.  It is further stated that the premium amount in the sum of Rs.6,43,022.1/- and sent to OP No. 1 Oriental Insurance Company on 29/30.07.2018. There is no deficiency in service on their part; therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.  

6.             The OP No.3, in its written statement 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 respondent randomly on the basis of village level. The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

7.             The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents annexure C-1 to annexure C-13 and closed his evidence.

8.             On the other hand, OP No. 1, in order to support their case, tendered affidavit EX.RW1/A and documents annexure R1 to annexure R2 and closed its evidence. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and document annexure R-7 and annexure R-8 closed the same. OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RW3/A and documents annexure R3 to annexure R6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No. 3.

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

10.            Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is a agriculturist by profession and owned agricultural land situated at Village Bhagal, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.  He sown Paddy crop in the season of 2018 and got insured his crop under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) for the year 2017-2018 with opposite party No. 1 i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and had also paid Rs. 3572.10/- as premium amount for the same through his account No. 154813031314 of DENA Bank, Cheeka which has been merged in Bank of Baroda, Cheeka Branch. There were heavy rains in the area, due to which, his standing paddy crops was destroyed. In this regard, he duly informed the OP No. 3 thereafter concerned official of OP No. 3 visited the flood affected area and assessed 40% to 50% damage of paddy crops in collusion with the official of opposite party No. 1.  The officials assured the complainant to reimburse this loss within 1-2 months.  He visited the OPs various times to release the claim amount, but they failed to release the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11.            On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1-Insurance Company has argued that as per averments of the complaint the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Bhagal Tehsil & District Kaithal due to the reason for loss mentioned as Heavy Rain Fall which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY), Scheme and no documentary proof of alleged loss has been annexed with the complaint to prove the same. It is stated that as per guidelines of scheme immediate intimation was to be given within 48 hours but complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss  of crop in Village Bhagal within stipulated period..

12.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2-bank has argued that the premium amount of Rs.3572.10 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 25.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2018 (Paddy) and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.1, who is liable to compensate the complainant, if any. 

13.            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.   

14.            The G.P. for the OP No.3-Agriculture Department has contended that the intimation received for localized claim was 4 acre, so, complainant is entitled for loss occurred in 4 acres.  In this regard, query was made to representative of OP No.3-Agriculture Department, who has stated that premium amount of Rs.595/- was deducted per acre in the year 2018, so, in this way, the land comes as 6 acre (Rs.3572.10 paise ÷Rs.595/-).  So far the liability is concerned, 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”.  

15.            So, from perusal of above Notification, we found that it was  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, 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.

16.            In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9137.14 paise per acre as per Mark-A.  Hence, for 6 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.54,823/- (Rs.9137.14 paise x 6 acre).  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1-Insurance Company.        

17.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.54,823/- 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.     

18.            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.:08.08.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.