Haryana

Kaithal

439/19

Satbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental insurance co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Satish Saharan

31 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.439 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 19.12.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:31.10.2022.  

Satbir Singh son of Ram Kumar aged 33 years, resident of Balbera District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
2. Bank of Baroda Cheeka, Tehsil Cheeka, District Kaithal.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Kaithal, Room No.103, Mini Secretariat, Kaithal.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Satish Saharan, Advocate, for the complainant.   

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

                Respondent No.2 exparte.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

       Satbir Singh-Complainant has 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 complainant is agriculturist by profession and owned agricultural land situated at Village Balbera, Distt. Kaithal.  It is alleged that the complainant had insured his crop under PMFBY (Pradhan Mantri Bima Yojna) for the year 2017-18 with the respondent No.1 and had also paid Rs.5056/- for the same through his account No.154813031185 of Dena Bank, Cheeka.  It is further alleged that in the Kharif Season of 2018, the complainant had sown paddy crop upon the agriculture land and expected bumper crop.  But due to heavy rainfall in that area, the wheat crop of the complainant got damaged/ruined due to “Rainwater lodging”.  It is further alleged that the complainant and other farmers of the village reported the matter to the respondent No.3, who in return deputed a surveyor, who inspected the village land and assessed 20% to 30% damage of crops.  It is further alleged that the complainant moved an application to the respondent No.1 to make payment of compensation due to loss to the paddy crops but inspite of repeated requests, the respondent No.1 has failed to make the compensation to him.  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 respondent No.1 appeared before this Commission, whereas respondent No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt.06.02.2020 of this commission.  Respondent No.1 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that as per record, the complainant is not insured with the answering respondent.  However, as per averments of the complaint, the loss of kharif crop has been affected in Village Balbhera, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “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 supplied any proposal form to the answering respondent due to the reason 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.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi.  On merits, it is stated that the survey was conducted randomly at village level.   The other contents of complaint are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.         

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-CW1 to Annexure-CW6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2, and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

7.             No intimation has been given by the complainant to the Agriculture Department regarding loss.  However, the premium of Rs.5056/- has been deposited by the complainant with the respondent No.2-bank.  The Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4117.13 paise per acre.  Hence, for 6 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.24,703/- (Rs.4117.13 paise x 6 acre).      

8.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.24,703/- to the complainant 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.  Dena Bank now merged in Bank of Baroda-respondent No.2 has given wrong name of the area in which land was under survey for the damage of crops.  The name of the area is actually Balbera while negligently, the officials of Dena Bank-respondent No.2 have given wrong name of the area to be Kakrala while actually it is Balbera.  Hence, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank-respondent No.2 which shall be paid to the complainant.  It is made clear that the respondent No.2-bank will pay the premium amount of Rs.5056/- to the respondent No.1-insurance company which was already deducted by the respondent No.2-bank from the account of complainant, if retained by the respondent No.2-bank till now.         

9.             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.:31.10.2022.

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.