Haryana

Kaithal

65/20

Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental insurance co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kabir Dhall

24 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.65 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 05.02.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:24.02.2023.

1. Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Mewa Singh.
2. Mewa Singh S/o Sh. Phula Ram, both rs/o Dharma Patti, Vill. Dundwa, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainants.

                        Versus

1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Kaithal through its Branch Manager
2. State Bank of India, Kalayat Branch, through its Branch Manager.
3. Block Agriculture Officer, Office of Director Agriculture, Mini Secretariat, Kaithal.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

               

Present:     Sh. Kabir Dhall, Advocate for the complainants.   

                Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sunil Kumar, PO Rep. for the respondent No.3. 

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Ramesh Kumar and other-Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainants are  agriculturists by profession and doing agriculture on land measuring 7 acres.  It is alleged that the complainants availed crop loan from the respondent No.2-bank vide account No.65184270723 and the crop of complainants has been duly got insured by the respondent No.1 from the respondent No.1-insurance company during the relevant period and insurance premium of Rs.3725.03 paise was debited on 29.07.2018 and further a sum of Rs.2100.74 paise was debited on 12.12.2018.  It is further alleged that unfortunately during the insurance period, the paddy crop on 7 acre of aforesaid land of complainant got fully damaged due to heavy rainfall in the month of September, 2018 and complainants immediately informed the respondents about the heavy loss suffered by the complainants.  It is further alleged that the respondents constituted the inspection committee which conducted the survey and inspected the fields of complainants and other farmers and assessed the loss of 80% of paddy crop on 6.5 acre of land of complainants.  The complainant requested the respondents 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 respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  Respondents No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that as per record, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of crop has been affected in Village Balbhera, Distt. 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 fact, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent as his banker had not uploaded the data of complainant on National Crop Insurance Portal of Govt. of India or supply any proposal form to the answering respondent due to the reasons best known to them.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never supplied any documents to the answering respondent.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the premium amount of Rs.3725.03 paise was debited from KCC account of complainant on 29.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif-2018 and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.1 in their account No.0248002100026568 on 30.07.2018 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 respondent No.2 bank) including that of present complainants were prepared/uploaded on PMFBY Portal within prescribed time/cut off date by respondent No.2 and such consolidated proposal/list of farmers/declaration were also submitted to respondent No.1 well within time.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Respondent 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 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.   

5.             To prove their case, the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R9, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R10 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             ­­­­ As per Annexure-R8, the land is totally insured under OIC while application ID for combined area insured is 2.534 Hectare (which becomes approximately 6.25 acre), which is shown “approved” in the column of application status.  Sh. Sunil Kumar, PO Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and he has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5666.90 paise per acre.  Hence, for 6.25 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.35,418/- (Rs.5666.90 paise x 6.25 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.35,418/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted with cost.  The cost is assessed as Rs.5500/- which will be paid by the respondent No.1-insurance company to the complainants.     

10.            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.:24.02.2023.

 

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

                                (Suman Rana),          

                                Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.