Haryana

Kurukshetra

91/2018

Pala Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB - Opp.Party(s)

M.K.Sharma

03 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.91 of 2018

                                                     Date of institution: 27.4.2018

                                                     Date of decision:3.03.2022                                          

                         

Pala Ram son of Dalel Singh resident of VPO Hathira Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …Complainant.

                        Versus

1.Punjab National Bank, Kirmach, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, SCO No.147-148, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160009 service to be effected at Branch office, Opposite Petrol Pump, Kurukshetra Road Pipli, Kurukshetra.

3.Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare, Kurukshetra (DDA).

4.State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra.

                                                                      ….Opposite parties.

                Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. M.K.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.Lovekesh Mazcvhhal Advocate for OP No.1.

                Sh.V.K.Garg Advocate for OP No.2.

                Sh.Mukesh Kumar, ADA for Ops no.3 and 4.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been moved by Pala Ram against PNB etc.-Opposite Parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and is having a account No.3266008800004579 with the OP No.1.The OP No.2 got insured the land of the complainant

measuring 10 acres situated at village Hithira Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra and an amount of Rs.3325/- on 31.7.2013, Rs.2160/- on 26.3.2014 and Rs.10.01.2017 and Rs.4186/-  on 20.7.2017  and Rs. 3542/- on 30.12.2017 were deducted from the said account of the complainant. The complainant has suffered loss of crops sown on the above said land. The complainant approached the District Horticulture Officer, Kurukshetra  within 48 hours i.e. on 27.1.2017 with the request to visit the fields and inspect the crops upon which team of  SDAO  visited the field and inspected the crops and gave its report to the effect that the crop of the complainant was found  damaged  to the extent of 30-40%.The complainant approached the Ops for compensation of loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant continuously approached the Ops to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by the complainant but the Ops are postponing the matter on one pretext or the other despite service of legal notice dated 5.4.2018 which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.  Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for   grant of compensation for damages to the crops and for the mental harassment and agony caused to him together with litigation expenses.

3.           The OP No.1 has appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  The matter regarding loss of crops is stated to be a matter of record but it is stated that the answering OP no.1 has no fault and having no role in the present complaint, hence the petition of the complainant is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP.

4.             The OP No.2 has submitted that no intimation regarding alleged loss was given to the OP at all by the complainant. For the first time, intimation was given to the insurance company by the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Kurukshetra vide letter No.353 dated 22.11.2017 which was duly replied by the company official with the remarks that intimation under localized claims was never given to the insurance company and  hence the answering OP has no liability to pay any compensation.  No intimation regarding loss was given to the answering OP at all by the complainant. It is wrong that there is illegal act on the part of the answering OP at all. It is however, submitted that yield claim of the complainant has already been settled as per yield data submitted by the government and the yield  claim amount was settled at Rs.370.80 UTR No.N331170417530051 UTR date 27.11.2017 Recipient bank name Punjab National Bank Branch name Kirmach.  It is submitted that qualification of loss cannot be determined in the absence of necessary survey of loss which ought to be conducted immediately after occurrence of the loss and thus illegal and high demand of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Thus, it is submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

5.             The OP No.3 has filed its written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  The farmer gave an intimation on 8.2.2017  which was received vide receipt No.952 dated 8.2.2017. In this regard, it is submitted that as per para XV (c) I of THE OPERATIONAL GUIDIELINES OF PMFBY the immediate intimation ( within 48 hours of the ensured farmer) is necessary.  The survey was carried out by the concerned ADO in their routine work for information only. Due to late receipt of intimation, the field of the farmer was not surveyed by notified committee (Block Agriculture Officer, Survey/loss assessor of the RGICL and concerned farmer) as per para CV (c) iv, appointment of loss assessor by the insurance company . All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically and it was submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

6.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence.

7.             The OP No.1 in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW2/A and tendered document Ex.C-7 and closed its evidence.

8.             On the other hand, OP No.2 has in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 and closed its evidence.

9.             Thereafter, Sh.Garv Bathla, Project Officer has filed affidavit Ex.RW3/A and tendered and closed the evidence of OP No.3 and 4.

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

10.            The learned counsel for the complainant while reasserting the averments made in the complaint has argued that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and is having a account No.3266008800004579 with the OP No.1.The OP No.2 got insured the land of the complainant measuring 10 acres situated at village Hithira Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra and an amount of Rs.3325/- on 31.7.2013, Rs.2160/- on 26.3.2014 and Rs.10.01.2017 and Rs.4186/-  on 20.7.2017  and Rs. 3542/- on 30.12.2017 were deducted from the said account of the complainant. It is further argued that the complainant has suffered loss of crops sown on the above said land.  It is argued on behalf of the complainant that the  complainant approached the District Horticulture Officer, Kurukshetra  within 48 hours i.e. on 27.1.2017 with the request to visit the fields and inspect the crops upon which team of  SDAO  visited the field and inspected the crops and gave its report to the effect that the crop of the complainant was found  damaged  to the extent of 30-40%.The complainant approached the Ops for compensation of loss suffered by the complainant.  It is lastly argued that the  complainant continuously approached the Ops to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by the complainant but the Ops are postponing the matter on one pretext or the other despite service of legal notice dated 5.4.2018 which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

11.            The learned counsel for the OP No.1 while reiterating the contentions made in the written statement has argued that the matter regarding loss of crops is stated to be a matter of record but it is stated that the answering OP no.1 has no fault and having no role in the present complaint, hence the petition of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

12.            The learned counsel for the OP No.2 while reiterating the contentions made in the written statement has argued that  no intimation regarding alleged loss was given to the OP at all by the complainant. For the first time, intimation was given to the insurance company by the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Kurukshetra vide letter No.353 dated 22.11.2017 which was duly replied by the company official with the remarks that intimation under localized claims was never given to the insurance company and  hence the answering OP has no liability to pay any compensation.  No intimation regarding loss was given to the answering OP at all by the complainant. It is wrong that there is illegal act on the part of the answering OP at all. It is however, submitted that yield claim of the complainant has already been settled as per yield data submitted by the government and the yield  claim amount was settled at Rs.370.80 UTR No.N331170417530051 UTR date 27.11.2017 Recipient bank name Punjab National Bank Branch name Kirmach.  It is submitted that qualification of loss cannot be determined in the absence of necessary survey of loss which ought to be conducted immediately after occurrence of the loss and thus illegal and high demand of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

13.            The learned counsel for OP No.3 has argued that the  farmer gave an intimation on 8.2.2017  which was received vide receipt No.952 dated 8.2.2017. In this regard, it is submitted that as per para XV (c) I OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDIELINES OF PMFBY the immediate intimation ( within 48 hours of the ensured farmer) is necessary.  The survey was carried out by the concerned ADO in their routine work for information only. Due to late receipt of intimation, the field of the farmer was not surveyed by notified committee (Block Agriculture Officer, Survey/loss assessor of the RGICL and concerned farmer) as per para CV (c) iv , appointment of loss assessor by the insurance company.

14.            After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the complainant got insured his  wheat crops with the OP No.2 and the amount of premium was deducted from the account of the complainant which is with the OP No.1-bank.  The main contention of the leaned counsel for the OP No.2 and 3 is that the intimation of loss of crops was given late, therefore, the loss could not be determined.

                   But the perusal of the file shows that the application Ex.C-3 has been thumb marked by the complainant and he is an illiterate person and he is not supposed to know about the time limit in giving intimation of loss of his crops. He has also put his thumb impression on certain zimni orders of this Commission. Further, the farmers covered under the  loss of crops due to over flow of water  as mentioned in para no.3 of the written statement filed by OP no.3 and 4 is proved, as admitted by OP No.3 and 4 and complainant being a farmer is covered under the PMFBY scheme. As per application Ex.C-3 the complainant has disclosed the loss to crops on 27.1.2017  due to rainfall. In the report Ex.C-2 Agriculture Development Officer, Kirmach has also mentioned that the loss was caused due to overflow of water.

                     Further in the   circular dated 20.9.2011 issued by the IRDA shows that “ the current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for the insurers for effecting  various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment provisioning claim settlement etc. However, this condition  should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.”  In the said circular, it is also mentioned “that one needs to  see the merits and good spirit of the clause without compromising on bad claims. Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policy holders losing confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigation.”        Therefore, claim of the complainant cannot be declined on the technical ground of delay in intimation if any.

15.            In the case in hand vide application Ex.R-1 intimation of loss was given to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra . Vide report Ex.R-3 loss was assessed to be 30-40%. The affected area is disclosed 10 acres of land due to over flow of water. The crop of wheat was sown by the complainant.  Therefore, insurance of crop, deduction of premium amount, loss of the crop of ten acres of what and assessment of the loss @ 30-40% are not in dispute in this case.

16.            Now, coming to the quantum of amount to be awarded to the complainant, we are of the view that at least 20 quintal yield can be expected from one acres of wheat crop. As discussed above, the complainant had sown ten acres of land.  The  report Ex.R-3 shows 30-40% loss in one acre.  If we take 20 quintal of yield from one acre and took 30 % loss then in our view, then in our view  six quintal loss can be estimated from one acre. The rate of wheat per quintal can be safely held at least 1800/- per quintal, then for six quintal of what from one acre comes to 1800 x 6 =10800 per acre.  To be very fare it can be safely held that the complainant has suffered at least loss of Rs.10000/- per acre and for ten acres it comes to Rs.10,0000/-. Besides, the complainant has also paid for litigation expenses which can be estimated to Rs.5000/-. This loss suffered by the complainant has not been paid by the OP No.2. Therefore, OP no.2 is deficient in services. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be accepted against OP No.2. The complaint qua OP No.1,3 and 4 is liable to be dismissed.

17.            In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on account of loss of crop, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e.22.04.2018 till its actual realization.  The OP No.2 shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for litigation expenses. The OP No.2 is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint qua OP No.1,3 and 4 stands dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per the rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated 3.03.2022.

 

                                                                             President.

 

                                        Member.