BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 370 of 2019
Date of Institution : 02. 12.2019
Date of Decision : 24.08.2022
Manoj son of Satbir R/o VPO Garhwali Tehsil Julana District Jind.
.….Complainant
Versus
- Punjab National Bank, Gatauli Tehsil Julana District Jind.
- 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. State of Haryana through 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, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. Kamal Rai Sharma, learned counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, learned counsel for OP No.2.
Sh. Navneet Kumar, Assistant Statistical Officer on behalf of OP No. 3.
ORDER
The facts giving rise to filing of this complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist having land situated within revenue estate of village Garhwali as per jamabandi for the year 2015-2016. He was maintaining a bank account no.3278008800013589 with OP No.1. His paddy and cotton crop was insured with OP No.2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (in short PMFBY) and for this purpose a sum of Rs.1385.48p deducted his bank account with OP No.1. Complainant’s 2 ½ acre paddy crop got damaged completely due to heavy rains and information in this regard was given to the OP insurance company as well as Agriculture Department, upon which, survey was conducted on 15.10.2018 and found loss of crop to the extent of 75.5%. As per complainant, he has suffered loss of paddy yield in 2 ½ acre @ 20 quintals per acre i.e. 50 quintals and thereby suffered loss @ Rs.3500/- per quintal which works out to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/-. But Ops avoided the damages on one pretext or the other which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Complaint has been preferred seeking relief of Rs.1,75,000/- as damages, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pains and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, Ops appeared and tendered their written statements.
3. OP No.1-bank contested the complaint on the ground of maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that complainant’s crop was insured by OP No.2 insurance company and the answering Op deducted premium amount from the account of complainant and sent the same to OP insurance company which was duly accepted. Crop loss to the complainant has been denied for want of knowledge. It is denied that any inspection was carried out in their presence. The loss mentioned is also on higher side. It is urged that OP bank is only a mediator for crop insurance of complainant and compensation, if any is to be settled by the OP insurance company. Deficiency in service on its part has been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
OP No.2- insurance company filed its reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. On merits, it is admitted that crop of complainant was insured with it for coverage of paddy crop as per the PMFBY guidelines. But the answering OP not received any intimation for the localized claim and the OP company not assessed the complainant’s claim in localized manner, therefore, OP company assessed the claim on yield basis and observed that the village Actual Yield (AY) Kilogram/Hectare was more than Thresholds Yield (TY) Kilogram/Hectare. Hence as per the PMFBY guidelines, the complainant is not eligible for compensation. OP prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
OP No.3-agriculture department in the reply raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous, complainant is not consumer of OP No.3 and complaint does not lie against the answering Op. Complaint has been filed with ulterior motive to extract money from it and that it is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that the survey so conducted is a matter of record, however, denied any kind of compensation to the complainant. OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. To buttress his complaint, complainant placed on record his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence.
On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 placed on record affidavits Annexure OPW1/A & OPW1/B and closed the evidence. OP No.2 placed on record affidavit Annexure OPW2/A alongwith documents as Anneuxre OPW2/A and closed the evidence. The counsel for OP No.3 placed on record affidavit OPW3/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record very carefully.
6. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that due to heavy rains his paddy crop sown in 2 ½ acre got flooded with water and damaged completely. The counsel has argued that complainant suffered loss of Rs.1,75,000/- for the paddy crop. But the OP insurance company did not pay any amount towards compensation. Complainant’s counsel has 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 argued that it has not received any intimation for the localized claim and the OP company not assessed the complainant’s claim in localized manner, therefore, OP company assessed the claim on yield basis and observed that the village Actual Yield (AY) Kilogram/Hectare was more than Thresholds Yield (TY) Kilogram/Hectare. Hence as per the PMFBY guidelines, the complainant was not eligible for compensation and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
Learned counsel for OP No.1 also argued that crop of complainant was insured by 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 of 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.
7. It is admitted by the OP insurance company that the paddy crop of complainant was insured and on receiving intimation of loss of paddy crop, fields were inspected by Agriculture Department and as per survey certificate (Annexure C-5) placed on record by complainant, it is revealed that loss to the paddy crop was 75.5%. Further, as per document (Annexure C-4) paddy crop of complainant standing in 2 ½ acre got affected. To prove ownership over the land, complainant has placed on record copy of jamabandi Annexure C-6. As per insurance certificate (Annexure C-7), the sum insured for the paddy crop was Rs.73,500/- per hectare (Rs.29,400)/- per acre. Therefore, calculating the loss to the paddy crop of complainant in 2 ½ acre while assessing loss at 75.5% comes to Rs.55,492/-. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the OP insurance company has arbitrarily & illegally, partially not paid any amount to the complainant for the crop loss whereas the complainant was squarely entitled for the 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 2 ½ 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.55,492/- (Rs. Fifty five thousand four hundred ninety two) 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.10000/- (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:24.08.2022 (Mukesh Bansal) President
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer.
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(G.D. Goyal)
Member
CC No.370 of 2019
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. Kamal Rai Sharma, learned counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, learned counsel for OP No.2.
Sh. Navneet Kumar, Assistant Statistical Officer on behalf of OP No. 3.
Arguments concluded. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint has been allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced:24.08.2022 Member Member President DCDRC, Jind
OP No.2- insurance company filed its reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. On merits, it is admitted that insurance policy was issued to the complainant for coverage of paddy crop as per the PMFBY guidelines. Op company on receiving joint surveyor’s report regarding assessment of loss as per govt. guidelines under PMFBY, assessed the loss of Rs.10,961.96p as localized manner and same has been admitted by the complainant. Hence, no liability on the part of this OP can be attributed and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
OP No.3-agriculture department in the reply raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous, complainant is not consumer of OP No.3 and thus present complaint does not lie against the answering Op, the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive to extract money from it and that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted 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 Annexures C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence.
On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 placed on record documents as Annexures OP1/1 to OP1/9 and closed the evidence. The counsel for OP No.2 placed on record affidavit of Sh. Arvind Singh Naruka Assistant Manager as Annexure OPW2/A and closed the evidence. OP No.3 has placed on record affidavit OPW3/A and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that due to heavy rains his paddy and cotton crop sown in25 ½ acre and 4 acre got flooded with water and damaged by 70% & 80% respectively. The counsel has argued that complainant suffered loss of Rs.1,75,000/- for the paddy crop and Rs.1,50,000/- for cotton crop. But the OP insurance company paid only a sum of Rs.10961.96p. as compensation. 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 argued that the complainant’s paddy & cotton crop was insured with it and on receipt of intimation of loss of paddy crop, claim was assessed to the tune of Rs.10961.96p. which was paid to the complainant and the same has been admitted by complainant in his pleadings. As such, the counsel has argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP insurance company and argued for dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. It is admitted by the OP insurance company that the paddy and cotton crop of the complainant was insured and on receiving intimation of loss of paddy and cotton crop, fields were inspected and as per survey certificate of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-5) placed on record by complainant, it is revealed that estimated loss to the paddy crop was 70% and loss to the cotton crop was 80%. As per application (Annexure C- 3 & C-4) moved by complainant to the Agriculture Department and OP No.2 insurance company, his paddy crop was standing in 2 ½ acres and cotton crop in 4 acre. To prove ownership over the land, he has placed on record copy of jamabandi Annexure C-6. As per notification Annexure C-7, the sum insured for the paddy crop was Rs.73500/- per hectare (Rs.29400/- per acre) and Rs.72,000/- per hectare (Rs.28800/- per acre) for cotton crop. Therefore, calculating the actual loss to the paddy crop of complainant in 2 ½ acres while assessing loss at 70% comes to Rs.51,450/- and loss to the cotton crop in 4 acre while assessing loss at 80% comes to Rs.92,160/-. Thus a total loss in terms of money caused to complainant at Rs.1,43,610/-. Out of which, admittedly, complainant has received compensation of Rs.10,962/- from OP no.2 insurance company. 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, the complainant was squarely entitled for the actual loss caused to him. So, the OP No.2 insurance company is held liable to indemnify the aforesaid loss caused to the complainant. 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.1,43,610/- (Rs. One lac fourty three thousand six hundred ten) 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.11000/- (Rs. Eleven 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:24.08.2022 (Mukesh Kumar) President
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer.
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(D.M. Yadav)
Member
CC No.349 of 2019
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. Kamal Rai Sharma, learned counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, learned counsel for OP No.2.
Sh. Navneet Kumar, Assistant Statistical Officer on behalf of OP No. 3.
Arguments concluded. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint has been allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced:24.08.2022 Member Member President DCDRC, Jind
