BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 298 of 2019
Date of Institution : 13.11.2019
Date of Decision : 09.08.2022
Harpal son of Sh. Kartar Singh R/o VPO Garhwali Tehsil Julana District Jind.
.….Complainant.
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank Gatuali, District Jind.
2. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office: “Natraj” 101,201 & 301, Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla-Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400069 through its Managing Director/authorized person.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Jind.
……Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
CORAM: SH. MUKESH BANSAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT.NEERU AGARWAL, MEMBER.
SH. G.D. GOYAL MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, Adv. for complainant.
Sh. P.K. Gupta, Adv. for OP No.1.
Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, Adv. for Op No.2 (Evidence of OP No.2 closed by Court vide order dated 01.12.2021).
Sh. Navneet Kumar, Assistant Statistical Officer for Op No.3.
ORDER
The facts giving rise to the present complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist and owner in possession of land 64 kanals situated within revenue estate of village Garhwali as per jamabandi for the year 2015-16. He is having a bank account no.327800880000381 with OP No.1. Kharif crop (paddy) of complainant was insured by OP No.2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yajna through OP No.1 on premium of Rs.4762.80p. paid on 31.07.2018 from his bank account. Eight acres paddy crop of complainant got damaged completely due to heavy rain/inundation. He moved an application to Agriculture Department on 26.09.2018 upon which a joint team of Agriculture Department, Tehsildar Julana and OP insurance company conducted a sample survey in the village on 15.10.2018 and assessed loss of paddy to the extent of 75.5%. However, as per complainant his total crop was damaged. Complainant has submitted that he has suffered loss of paddy yield about @ 18 quintals per acre, and thus a total loss in 8 acres comes to 144 quintals and thereby suffered loss @ Rs.2800/- per quintals which comes to Rs.4,03,200/- but the Op No.2 insurance company did not compensate for actual loss rather paid a sum of Rs.34141.97p. on 03.10.2019. Thus the complainant has prayed that the OP insurance company may be directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.3,69,058.03p. Besides this, a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of mental pains and harassment alongiwth interest @ 18% per annum from filing of complaint till realisation alongwith a sum of Rs.11000/- as litigation charges.
2. Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies.
OP No.1-bank contested the complaint on the ground that it has been impleaded unnecessarily and the relief claimed is against the OP No.2. On merits, it is admitted that the crop of complainant was insured with OP No.2. But he answering OP has no information regarding the damage to the crop of complainant nor knowledge about the alleged loss. It is urged that the amount paid by the insurance company if less is to be proved by the complainant. Deficiency in service on its part has been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
OP No.2-insurance company has submitted that crop insurance was done under PMFBY which operates on area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as an insurance. Further submitted that complainant never shared policy and application number with them. Hence, unable to trace the claim or any grievance of complainant. It is averred that the answering OP checked the complainant’s detail through the given bank account number but no particulars were available. As such, the OP has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
OP No.3-agriculturedepartment in the reply raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous, complainant is not consumer and thus present complaint does not lie against the answering Op which has been filed with ulterior motive to extract money from it and further that it is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, that the survey was conducted is a matter of record, however, denied any kind of compensation to the complainant from the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. To buttress his complaint, complainant placed on record affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence.
On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 placed on record affidavit Annexure OPW1/A and closed the evidence. Op No.3 tendered in evidence document Annexure OP3/1 and closed the evidence. No evidence tendered on behalf of OP No.2, so closed by Court vide order dated 01.12.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, as well as representative of OP No.3 and perused the record very carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that due to heavy rains his paddy crop sown in 4.44 acre got flooded with water and damaged by 100%. The counsel has argued that complainant suffered loss of Rs.3,37,440/- for the paddy crop. But the OP insurance company paid only a sum of Rs.56801/- as compensation for paddy crop. Complainant’s counsel also argued that the act & conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as harassment to the complainant.
On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that complainant never shared policy & application number with the answering OP. So, the OP insurance company was not able to trace the alleged claim/grievance of complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
Learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that crop of complainant was insured with OP No.2 and the policy had been issued by it and compensation, if any, is to be paid by the Op insurance company. The OP bank has no knowledge about the damage to the crop of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and argued for dismissal of complaint qua it.
6. It is admitted case of complainant that a sum of Rs.34,141.97p. was paid by the OP insurance company to him as compensation whereas the actual loss caused to his crop was much more than this. Op insurance company has nowhere pleaded that the crop of complainant was not insured with it. The only objection of the OP insurance company is that the complainant has not shared policy number etc. of the crop insurance policy. In this regard, we are of the opinion that it is not the business of complainant to share policy number etc. while getting compensation of the damaged crop. The duty of complainant was only to inform the concerned authorities about the loss to his crop which he has done vide document Annexure C-3. Further, complainant is a farmer and does not know much about formalities of the insurance, at the most, he could pay the insurance premium which he has paid through the bank account which is clear from copy of bank passbook (Annexure C-2). After this, it was incumbent upon the Ops to do all necessary formalities viz. inspection of fields, assessing of loss and compensation . Field inspection and assessing of compensation etc. are the job of insurance company for which complainant cannot be fastened. On the contrary, in the present case, the OP insurance company has alleged that complainant has not shared policy number etc. which casts doubt on the act & conduct of OP insurance company resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment to the complainant. As per sample survey certificate of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-5) placed on record by complainant, it is revealed that estimated loss to the paddy crop was 75.5% and as per document (Annexure C-4), 8 acres paddy crop of complainant damaged due to inundation. To prove ownership over the land, he has placed on record copy of jamabandi Annexure C-6. As per prevailing crop insured rate during the year 2018 for paddy crop was Rs.28,935/- per acre. Therefore, calculating the actual loss to the paddy crop of complainant in 8 acre while assessing loss at 75.5% comes to Rs.1,74,767/-, out of which, admittedly, complainant has received compensation of Rs.34,141/-. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the OP insurance company has arbitrarily & illegally, partially compensated the complainant for the crop loss whereas he was squarely entitled for the actual loss caused to him. So, the OP No.2 insurance company is held liable to indemnify the loss caused to the complainant for paddy crop in 8 acres. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the OP No.2 insurance company is directed to comply with the following directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order:-
(i) To pay Rs.1,40,626/- (Rs. One lac fourty thousand six hundred twenty six) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till the date of actual realization. In case of default, the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till the actual realization.
(ii) And to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
- Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousand) as litigation expenses.
Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs, on usual terms. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced on:09.08.2022 (Mukesh Bansal) President
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer.
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(G.D. Goyal)
Member
