Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 317.
Instituted on : 22.05.2017.
Decided on : 22.08.2019.
Raj Kumar age 46 years, s/o Sh. Rakhi ram, R/o Village Indergarh Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance company Ltd., 4th Floor, Red Fort Pasharv Nath Tower, Gol Market, New Delhi-110001.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Plot no.149, Phase-1 Industrial Area, Chandigarh.
- Manager, Punjab & Sindh Bank, Jind Road, Lakhan Majra, Tehsil Meham District Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.1& 2.
Sh.S.P.Gulati, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has agriculture land measuring 55 kanal in village Indergarh(Chandi) Tehsil Meham District Rohtak. That complainant got his above said land/crops of Paddy insured under “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna’ with respondent no.1 & 2 through respondent no.3. That the complainant is having bank KCC A/c No.16/891 with opposite party No.3. That premium of insurance policy was deducted from the alleged bank account of the complainant on 02.08.2016. The same amount of premium transferred through RTGS to respondent no.1 & 2 and an amount of Rs.3459/- was deducted for the crops of Rabi(Paddy). The risk was covered at the rate of Rs.25000/- per acre. That the complainant had sown paddy crops in his above said land of 55 kanal and same was destroyed approximately 50% due to ‘Jal Bharav’ and complainant sent the information of damage on 21.10.2016 and a committee was instituted who surveyed the land of complainant and assessed the loss to the extent of 50%. A surveyor of D.D.A. office was also deputed and submitted his report on the prescribed format on 31.10.2016 for the loss of 50-60% of crops. That complainant approached the respondents and requested to make good the loss of Paddy crops of the complainant but the respondents have been delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.85937/- @ Rs.12500/- per acre as damages of paddy crops alongwith Rs.25,000/- as damages for unnecessary harassment to the complainant.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 2 in their reply has submitted that every farmer who wants to get the benefits of KCC, then he should have compulsorily get the insurance under the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Suraksha Bima Yojana”. The complainant never supplied necessary information and documents to prove the same. That the complainant should have approached to DAC & FW(Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare) department for any kind of grievances related to scheme or claim, but the complainant has filed the complaint before this Forum which cannot be adjudicated. That any loss intimated after 48 hours cannot be entertained as per the insurance policy terms and conditions of scheme of PMFBY in which the captioned KCC is covered. That complainant has not disclosed any time and date of loss in the claim petition. Moreover, the intimation regarding the said loss was given on 28.10.2016. The alleged loss was due to the “Hopper”. Hence the loss of crop has been rejected as per terms and conditions of the scheme. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that as the claim has been repudiated by respondent no.1 and not by respondent no.3. Hence there has been no deficiency of service on the part of answering opposite party. That complainant has advanced a Kissan Credit loan limit of Rs.750000/- on 27.11.2015 for agricultural purposes and is having a KCC A/c No.16/891 with the answering respondent bank. It is correct that the crops against whom the respondent bank advanced KCC loan facility was insured with respondent no.1 & 2 and respondent No.3 bank has remitted a consolidated premium amount of Rs.467354/- for various KCC loan account holders including a sum of Rs.3459/- in respect of insurance premium for crops of complainant to respondent no.1 & 2. That the claim has to be settled by the respondent no.1 & 2 as per rules and answering opposite party has nothing to do with the same. It is prayed that in case the complaint against the respondent no.1 & 2 is allowed and the insurance amount with compensation if any, is paid, the same may please be directed to be paid to respondent no.3 Bank for crediting in complainant KCC loan amount, as the complainant has availed loan from respondent no.3 Bank.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and has closed his evidence on dated 05.12.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.R1, document Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on 07.08.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.3 has made a statement that reply already filed on behalf of opposite party no.3 be read in evidence and closed his evidence on dated 01.04.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present complaint, the complainant pleaded that he has suffered loss in his 55 kanals of agricultural land. He sown paddy crops in his fields and due to ‘Jal Bharav’ the complainant’s crops damaged and regarding this fact the respondents officials constitute a committee, who surveyed the loss in the crops and submitted his report with the respondent officials. As per the report Ex.C2, the complainant suffered 50-60% loss in his field in 7 acres of land. This document was prepared by the Agriculture Development Officer, and the copy of this report was submitted to Joint Director(Statistical). As per this document, the complainant suffered loss in his paddy crops. In the present case complainant is having a KCC A/c No.16/891 with the respondent no.3 through which his land was hypothecated with the bank. As per Ex.C5 an amount of Rs.3459/- has been deducted from his account on dated 02.08.2016 for Fasal Bima Yojana. Meaning thereby, the complainant’s crop was insured through respondent no.1 & 2 and amount of premium had already been deducted from the account of complainant and paid to the respondent No.1 & 2 by the respondent no.3. Complainant applied for compensation and sent applications Ex.C4 & Ex.C6 to the opposite parties for payment of loss but the same has not been paid by the opposite parties till date. Copy of proposal form Ex.C19 under PMFBY and copy of Nakal Jamabandi Ex.C14 are also placed on record. Hence from the documents placed on record, it is established that the complainant’s crop of 7 acres was damaged upto 50-60% due to ‘Jal Bharav’ and the complainant has demanded 50% loss. As such we came to the conclusion that complainant is entitled for loss suffered by him in 55 kanal(7 acres approx.) of land. As per complaint, the risk was covered @ Rs.25000/- per acre and to prove this fact a document ‘Annxure-A’ has been placed on record, as per which paddy crop is insured for Rs.62500/- per hectare i.e. to say Rs.25000/- per acre. The complainant has suffered 50% loss in 7 acres. Accordingly he is entitled for the 50% loss @ 12500/- per acre i.e. Rs.87500/- for 7 acres.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 & 2 to pay Rs.87500-(Rupees eighty seven thousand five hundred only) towards loss of crops alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.22.05.2017 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.08.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
