Haryana

Panchkula

CC/613/2019

RAJINDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

02 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	613 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	15.11.2019
Date of Decision	:	02.05.2022

 

 

1.     Rajinder  Kumar, aged 56 years, son of Sh. Somnath,

2.     Harish Chander, aged 49 years, son of Sh. Somnath,

3.     Sh. Rakesh Kumar, aged 36 years, son of Sh. Kuldeep Chand,

All residents of village Kammi, PO Jalouli, Tehsil and District Panchkula, Pin134118

                                                                           ….Complainants

Versus

1.     Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, 170/2-3, Netaji Subhash Marg, Ambala Cantt-133001

2.     The Director, Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Sector-21, Panchkula.                   

                                                                                       ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant  in person.    

Sh.Alankrit Bhardwaj, Advocate for the OP No.1.

Ms.Megha Gupta, Authorised representative for the OP No.2.

ORDER

(Sh. Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainants are owners of 2 Acres agricultural land each bearing Khasra Nos.3,3//80,80,81,83 & 96 situated at village Kammi, Tehsil & District Panchkula.  The complainants had sown wheat crop and insured the same from the Ops through the scheme launched by the Government of India in the name of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana and the requisite premium was deducted from the bank account of the complainants, namely, Sarav Haryana Gramin Bank Barwala. Unfortunately due to heavy Hail storm in the region during the month of April, 2019 the wheat crop/Rabi-2018 was badly damaged and the complainants reported the matter in this regard to Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Barwala on 17.04.2019. On receipt of the said complaints, the intimation to the Ops sent by the Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Panchkula vide memos no.2893, 2883 and 2871 respectively vide dated 18.04.2019. On the complaints/intimation of the complainants, the survey was conducted by the officials of Ops to assess the loss to the crop suffered due to Hail Strom on 24.04.2019 in the presence of Block Agriculture Officer. As per the survey, the loss assessed by the complainant No.1 was 40% i.e. Rs.26,600/-, complainant no.2 was 40% i.e. 26,600/- and complainant no.3 was 50% i.e. Rs.33250/-. After receipt of the survey report of localize claim of 44 farms in block Barwala including the complainants, were sent by the OP No.2 to OP No.1 vide Memo No.3052-53 dated 02.05.2019 with the direction to settle the claim of the persons named in the said letter under the guidelines of PMFBY claim within 15 days. Thereafter, the complainants came to know that out of the said lists only the compensation of some of the persons were deposited by the Ops in their accounts. On gaining such knowledge, the complainants visited the O/o The Director, Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Panchkula and inquired about the status of their claim. The officials of the said Department intimated the complainants that they have already sent the claims of all the eligible persons vide their above said letter to the Ops and now the Ops has to disburse the amount of compensation as per loss assessment. Thereafter, the complainants visited the office of the Ops but the officials of the Ops did not pay any heed or intimate the status of their claim. Since the complainants have got their crop insured with the Ops by paying the premium and the Ops are duty bound to pass the claim by paying the premium and the Ops are duty bound to pass the claim in favour of the complainants but till date neither the Ops pass the claim nor any repudiation letter with regard to claims of the complainants were received to the complainants. Due to the above said act and conduct on the part of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental and physical agony, financial loss and harassment; hence, the present complaint.  

2.             Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless and false; no cause of action; no locus standi; suppressed the material facts; the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder and no jurisdiction On merits, it is stated that  as per the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana and guidelines of the Government and its Department i.e. Agricultural Farmers Welfare Department. The land area 0.683 per Acre of the complainants was insured and the complainants were bound by the terms and conditions of policy and terms conditions/direction issued by the Agricultural farmers Welfare Department time to time. The complainants filed the present complaint claiming that, due to heavy Hail Strom in the region during the month of April, 2019 the wheat crop/Rabi-2018 was badly damaged on 17.04.2019 and the complainants reported the same to the Agricultural Farmers Welfare Department and survey was conducted and loss was assessed on the higher side by the agency and Block Development officer. The loss was required to be assessed as per the rate notification of the Government notification calculation as per the notification was required to be done as mentioned below:-

i)      Rajinder Kumar, s/o Sh. Som Nath:- Total Land insured of the farmer is 0.683 hectare, thus total liability @Rs.53,500/- per hectare comes out to be Rs.14,616/- at the loss percentage of 40% assesses by the surveying authority.

ii)      Harish Chander, s/o SomNath:-Total Land insured of the farmer s as per the data uploaded by the bank on portal is 0.683 hectares only. Thus, total liability @Rs.53,500/- per hectare comes out to be Rs.14,616/- at the loss percentage of 40%.

iii)     Rakesh Kumar, s/o Kuldeep Chand:- Total Land insured of the farmer with the insurance company is in 0.683 hectares only, thus the total liability comes out to be Rs.18,270/- for the insured area @Rs.53,500/- per hectare of land, for 50% loss as assessed by, the surveying agency.

        The loss of the crop of the complainants happened on 17.04.2019 i.e. after the cut-off date of harvesting as per the scheme of the Govt. of India, as per which the date of harvesting was 15.04.2019 and the complainants were bound to follow the instruction/guidelines/direction of harvesting of the Government and its Department. However, it is submitted that in the case of crop insurance the OP No.1 are not bound to issue separate repudiation letter. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

        Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through their authorized representative and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is stated that as per the guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana(PMFBY) affected farmer has to send “information/intimation to insurance company directly or any one of the concerned-a) Bank/PACS, b)Local Agriculture Department/ District officials either through toll free number or mobile app or written report about occurrence of landslide, hailstorm and inundation before 15 days from the normal harvest time as notified by State/UTs supported by Information of IMD/Local Media, Reports of Agriculture/Revenue Departments, Media Reports” through  his own mobile or landline phone or any his own media within 72 hours from the occurrence of peril. The peril i.e. hailstorm, occurred on 17.04.2019 and the applicant informed the Agriculture Department on 18.04.2019. The Agriculture Department has processed the application of the applicant immediately and later on informed him that the Insurance Company i.e. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has refused to pay the compensation saying that information about localized loss(Form No.1) was submitted after the cut-off date. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant No.1 has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-12 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel of the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-1/A   alongwith documents as Annexure R-1/1 to R-1/10. The authorized representative of the OP No.2 by making a separate statement, stated that the reply filed on 03.02.2022 may be read into evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

                During the pendency of the complaint, the authorized representative of OP No.2 has placed on record several applications of other farmers alongwith  the details of compensation received by them from insurance company which are taken on record as Mark-1 to Mark-3.   The copy of notification about Harvesting Date and cut-off date for Kharif 2019 & Rabi 2019-20 is taken on record as Mark ‘4’. The copies showing the details of compensation disbursed by insurance company to other farmer, namely, Ram Karan, Sukhwinder Singh are taken on record as Mark ‘5’ to Mark ‘9’ for the adjudication of the case in a proper and fair manner.

                During the course of arguments, the complainant, namely, Rajinder has submitted the details of compensation, on a separate paper, to be paid by OP No.1 which is taken on record as Mark ‘10’ for the adjudication of the case in a proper and fair manner.

4.             We have heard the complainant No.1, the learned counsel for OP No.1 as well as the authorized representative of OP No.2 and gone through the entire record available on record including written arguments filed by the complainant and OP No.1, minutely and carefully.

5.             It is not in dispute that the wheat crops sown in Khasra Nos.3,3//80,80,81,83 & 96 situated in revenue estate village Kammi, Tehsil & District Panchkula, as mentioned in the Para No.2 of the complaint, in the season of Rabi 2018-19, was insured by complainants from the OP No.1 under the scheme i.e. Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna(herein after referred to as PMFBY) and, in this regard, a sum of Rs.681.20 was debited from each of the complainants from their respective accounts as per Annexure  C1, C-2  & C-3 . Further, it is also not in dispute that a team comprising of officers belonging to Agriculture Farmers and Welfare Department(OP No.2), a representative of the insurance company i.e. OP No.1 and the complainants i.e. farmers inspected the aforesaid agricultural land on 24.04.2019 after the receipt of loss intimation vide Annexure C-4, C-5 & C-12  from the complainants through OP No.2 and  assessed the loss vide  reports Annexure C-6, C-7 & C-8. The grievances of the complainants are that despite the loss assessed by the team as per Annexure C-6, C-7 & C-8, the OP No.1 has not indemnified the losses whereas some other similarly situated co-villagers, whose crops had also sustained loss, were duly compensated by OP No.1 by making payments to them.

6.             The OP No.1 has contested the complaint, apart from merits, by raising several preliminary objections qua the non-maintainability of the complaint, complainant has no locus-standi and no cause of action etc. The main objection of the OP No.1, as per written submissions, which were placed on record on 04.03.2022, is that the complainant has not taken permission for filing of joint complaint as required vide Section 12(1)© of the CP Act, 2019. The learned counsel vehemently contended that no application under Section 12(1)(c) of the C.P.Act, 2019 seeking permission of the Commission has been filed and thus, the complaint is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed upon the law laid down  by the Hon’ble NCDRC, vide its order dated 15.12.2017 in Consumer case no.3324 of 2017 titled as Harish Chandra and Ors Vs. M/s Ansal Hightech Township, wherein it was held as under:

                “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 12(1)(c ) and 21 Joint complaint-when cannot be admitted-Four complainants filed a combined       complaint involving four units-Therefore, this complaint prima facie held to be        not maintainable as no application under Section 12(1)(c )filed-Held, as this      complaint has not been filed in the representative capacity, therefore, this           complaint, which is a joint complain, cannot be admitted”.

        On the basis of the above case law, it is prayed that the complaint desires dismissal being not maintainable.

7.             The above objection is not tenable. All the complainants are co-owners in each and every part of the agriculture land located in Khasra Nos.3,3//80,80,81,83 & 96 situated in revenue estate village Kammi, Tehsil & District Panchkula, which is jointly owned and possessed by them as the said agriculture land, having a joint kewat, is not partitioned between the complainants. As per well settled legal proposition, the complainants cannot be treated in exclusive possession of any specific Khasra Number qua their shares and thus, the complaint is maintainable in the present form. 

                Further, the complaint is duly signed by all the complainants and the complainant no.1 i.e. Rajinder Kumar has authority letter in his favour to appear and defend the present  case  on behalf of the complainants No.2 & 3. Therefore, the objections of the OP No.1 about not taking the prior permission for filing the joint complaint carry no force and substance. The case law is also of no help to OP No.1 being distinguishable on facts and law.

8.             On merits, it is contended that the complainants had breached the terms and conditions of the scheme, by not adhering  to the same, while not harvesting the crops prior to the harvesting date i.e. 15.04.2019; thus, it is alleged that loss to the wheat crops in question occurred due to the delayed harvesting of the wheat crops,

                Reliance has been placed upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble NCDRC, vide its order dated 19.04.2017 in case titled as United India Insurance Company through its Delhi Regional Office Vs. Dheeraj Chahar s/o Sh. Dharam Singh.

9.             The above contentions of the OP No.1 about the delayed harvesting of the wheat crops i.e. after 15.04.2019 carry no force and substance as evidently, as per Annexure C-11/R-1/9/Mark-4, the harvesting date for the wheat crop in District Panchkula was between 15.04.2019 to 25.04.2019 and thus, the complainants were fully justified in harvesting the crops between 15.04.2019 to 25.04.2019. As per notified dates, according to Annexure C-11/R-1/9/Mark-4, harvesting of the wheat crop was permissible between 15.04.2019 to 25.04.2019 and thus, it was not binding upon the complainants to harvest the wheat crop on or before 15.04.2019 as the alleged by OP no.1. Moreover, it is a matter of common knowledge that agriculture crops are harvested as and when the same gets ripened and are ready for harvesting. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that there was any lapse on the part of the complainants while not harvesting the wheat crops prior to 15.04.2019.

10.            Further, the contentions of the OP no.1 regarding non adherence to the terms and conditions of the policy by the complainants  is also incorrect, as the complainants had duly intimated the Agriculture farmers and welfare department(OP No.2) within the stipulated period. As per operational guidelines (Annexure C-10), the intimation about the occurrence of Peril was required to be given within 72 hours whereas the complainants had sent the intimation on 18.04.2019 i.e. on the very next day of the occurrence of the peril on 17.04.2019.

11.            The OP No.2, while denying any lapse and deficiency on its part, as per averments made in Para No.10 & 11 of its reply on merits, has stated that the claim in question was denied by the OP No.1 on the ground that the claim was not lodged prior to the cut-off date, which was 15 days earlier than the harvesting date. However, there is no such averments in the written statement filed by OP no.1 and thus, the version, of OP No.1 vis-à-vis the version of OP No.2 is contrary to each other.

12.            Now, we advert to the plea of  the complainants that several other persons of village Kami, who had suffered the loss on account of damage to the crops in the same season, were duly compensated by OP No.1 by making payments to them. In this regard, having perused the Mark 6 & 7, it is found that several farmers, whose names appears at serial no.91, 93, 111, 167 and 168 of the list(Mark 6 & 7) were paid the compensation. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the details of the said farmers is tabulated alongwith their names and amounts paid to them etc. as under:-

Sr.               Name                     Village           Amount paid(Rs.)      Remarks

91.               Sukhwinder Kumar    Kami             23541                     Mark ‘6’

93.               Ram Karan              Kami             15960                     Mark ‘6’

111.             Mahinder Kumar       Kami             13300                     Mark ‘6’

167.             Janak Raj                Kami             7980                     Mark ‘7’

168.             Hemraj                   Kami             46550                     Mark ‘7’

 

                As per authorized representative of OP No.2, the aforesaid persons were similarly situated vis-à-vis the complainants.

                On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP No.1 failed to distinguish the cases of the complainants with those of the above mentioned persons,  who had been paid the compensation on account of the loss to their wheat crops. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the OP No.1 that the cases of the complainants differ from the cases of those persons who has been paid the compensation.  Thus, it is evident that the OP No.1 had adopted a policy of pick and chose by applying different yardsticks, which is neither permissible nor justified,  while denying the indemnification of the losses to the wheat crops of the complainants.  

13.            Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention here that the wheat crops  of the complainants was insured under the scheme, namely, Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, which is a benevolent scheme launched by the Government of India at National level, wherein  major part of the premium is shared between the Central and State Government. In the present case, as per Annexure R-1/1, R-1/2 & R-1/3, out of the total premium of Rs.6,776/-, a sum of Rs.2,547.61 and a sum of Rs.2547.61 was paid by the State Government  as well as Central Government and the balance of Rs.681.19 was paid by the complainants. From the above mentioned sharing pattern of the premium between Central Government and State Government, the objective behind the scheme is evident that the farmers, who has suffered the losses, are required to be duly compensated. As per Mark “A’ the objective of the scheme i.e. Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana(PMFBY)are as under:- -

1. Providing financial support to farmer suffering crop loss/ damage arising out of unforeseen events.
2. Stabilizing the income of farmers to ensure their continuance in farming
3. Encouraging farmers to adopt innovative and modern agricultural practices.
4. Ensuring flow of credit to the agriculture sector which will contribute to food security, crop diversification and enhancing growth and competitiveness of agriculture sector besides protecting farmers from production risks.

 

                The OP no.1 dealt with the claim of the complainants in a very negligent and causal manner with a lackadaisical approach. There is no dispute about the losses suffered by the complainants on account of damages to their wheat crops due to hailstorm.  The genuineness of the claims is not disputed. It is well settled law that a genuine and bonafied claim cannot be repudiated merely on the technical ground of delay and procedural lapses etc. The rejection of the claim on procedural lapses in a mechanical fashion is highly deprecated by various courts through a catena of judgments. In our considered opinion, the OP No.1 cannot be permitted to defeat the objective to be achieved by the benevolent scheme, namely, PMFBY.

14.            In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of OP No.1 while delivering the services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief. The present complaint is qua dismissed against OP No.2.

15.            Regarding relief, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 contended that the loss has been assessed by the team on higher side. The complainant, namely, Rajinder has submitted the details of compensation vide Mark ‘10’, to be paid by OP No.1. As per  Mark ‘10’, the  details of compensation payable by OP No.1 to the complainants, are as under:-

i.      Rajender Kumar          =      Rs.18,168/-

ii.      Harish Chander           =      Rs.18,168/-

iii.     Rakesh Kumar            =      Rs.22,710/-

 

On the other hand, the compensation to be payable by OP No.1 is as under:-

        i)      Rajinder Kumar, s/o Sh. Som Nath:- Total Land insured of the farmer is 0.683 hectare, thus, total liability @Rs.53,500/- per                         hectare comes out to be Rs.14,616/- at the loss percentage of   40% assesses by the surveying authority.

ii)       Harish Chander, s/o SomNath:- Total Land insured of the farmer as per the data uploaded by the bank on portal is 0.683 hectares only. Thus, total liability @Rs.53,500/- per hectare comes out to be Rs.14,616/- at the loss percentage of 40%.

iii)      Rakesh Kumar, s/o Kuldeep Chand:- Total Land insured of the farmer with the insurance company is 0.683 hectares only, thus, the total liability comes out to be Rs.18,270/- for the insured area @Rs.53,500/- per hectare of land, for 50% loss as assessed by the surveying agency.

16.            Both the parties agree that the insured sum for one hectare is/was Rs.66,500/- The insured area of each complainant i.e.0.683 hectare is also not disputed. After making deductions of the expenses which was likely to be incurred on account of transportation as well as traditional cost of harvesting, the amount of compensation shown by the OP No.1 as above is found correct; hence, the complainants are entitled to be compensation as per details given above.

17.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

        (a)    The OP No.1 is directed to make the payment of amount   indicated against each complainant as under:-

 

1. Rajinder Kumar   = Rs. 14,616/-
2. Harish Chander   = Rs. 14,616/-
3. Rakesh Kumar    = Rs. 18,270/-

 

                The payment of above amount shall be made alongwith   interest @9% per   annum w.e.f. the date of filing of this                     complaint till its realization.

 

        b)     The OP No.1 is also directed to make the payment of   Rs.8,000/- to each of the complainants(Rajinder Kumar,                   Harish Chander and Rakesh Kumar) on account of mental  agony and  harassment.

 

        c)     The OP no.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/-   to each complainants (Rajinder Kumar, Harish Chander and          Rakesh Kumar)on account of litigation charges.

 

18.            The OP No.1 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the  date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP No.1. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 02.05.2022

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

          Member                         Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                      Satpal                              

President