BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 303 of 2019
Date of Institution : 13. 11.2019
Date of Decision : 09.08.2022
Raghbir son of Sh. Khem Chand R/o VPO Garhwali Tehsil Julana, District Jind.
.….Complainant
Versus
- Punjab National Bank Gatauli, District Jind.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Regional Manager, Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No.156-159 Sector 9C, Chandigarh.
3. State of Haryana through Deputy Director (Agri.) 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. Lokender Kumar, learned counsel for OP No.2.
Sh. Navneet Kumar, Assistant Statistical Officer on behalf of OP No. 3.
ORDER
The facts giving rise to the present complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist and he had sown paddy crops in 1/5th share of 83 kanals situated within revenue estate of village Garhwali Khera as per jamabandi for the year 2015-2016. The crop was insured by OP No.2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (in short PMFBY) and for this purpose a sum of Rs.2459.53/- WERE deducted on 31.07.2017 from his bank account with OP No.1. crop in 4.44 acres (1.8 hectare) got damaged completely due to heavy rains. In this behalf, complainant moved an application to Agriculture Department for inspection of the spot to assess the loss, upon which, survey was conducted in the presence of officials of OP No.2 and crop of complainant was found damaged/destroyed to the extent of 100% due to inundation and Agriculture Department assessed loss and name of complainant listed in the list of loss at serial no.6 prepared by a Joint Committee. Complainant suffered loss of paddy yield about @ 20 quintals per acre, and thus a total loss in 4.44 acres comes to 88.80 quintals and thereby suffered loss @ Rs.3800/- per quintals which comes to the tune of Rs.3,37,440/- but the Op No.2 illegally and arbitrarily assessed the loss at Rs.56801/- and paid the same to the complainant on 06.08.2018. Thus complainant claims that a sum of Rs.2,80,639/- is still payable to him by Ops. They are not ready to pay this amount on one pretext or the other which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred seeking relief of Rs.2,60,639/- 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 filed their separate replies.
OP No.1-bank in its reply raised preliminary objections that the answering OP has been unnecessarily impleaded as the relief claimed is against only OP No.2. On merits, it is admitted that crop of complainant was insured with OP No.2 and the policy was issued. OP No.2 has no knowledge about the damage to the crop of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint. No information with regard to the loss was given to the answering OP. Further no inspection of agriculture fields of the complainant was done in the presence of answering OP. OP has denied deficiency in service and not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs has been made.
OP No.2- insurance company filed its reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous. On merits, it is admitted that insurance policy was issued to the complainant for coverage of paddy crop as per the PMFBY guidelines. Complainant was paid an amount of Rs.54,276/- on 22.11.2018 for the loss suffered due to inundation towards localized claim. As far as the yield loss/CCE claim is concerned, there is no claim payable in absence of shortfall of yield as per the Government notification. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and no mental pain and agonies has been caused to the complainant at the hands of answering OP 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-5 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. The counsel for OP No.2 placed on record affidavit Annexure OPW2/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP2/1 to OP2/5 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 parties 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 completely. 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 argued that the complainant’s paddy crop was insured with it and on receipt of intimation of loss of paddy crop, claim was assessed to the tune of Rs.56801/- which was paid to the complainant in his bank account. 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 crop of complainant was insured and on receiving intimation of loss of paddy crop, fields were inspected and as per survey certificate of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-3) placed on record by complainant, it is revealed that estimated loss to the paddy crop was 100%. Further, paddy crop was standing in 4.5 acre (1.8 hectare) got affected. To prove ownership over the land, complainant has placed on record copy of jamabandi Annexure C-4. As per insurance certificate (Annexure C-5), the sum insured for the paddy crop was Rs.28,935/- per acre. Therefore, calculating the actual loss to the paddy crop of complainant in 4.5 acre while assessing loss at 100% comes to Rs.1,30,207/-, out of which, admittedly, complainant has received compensation of Rs.56,801/- for paddy crop 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 he 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 4.5 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.73,406/- (Rs. Seventy three thousand four hundred 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.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:09.08.2022. (Mukesh Bansal) President
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer.
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(G.D. Goyal)
Member
CC No.303 of 2019
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. Kamal Rai Sharma, learned counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Lokender Kumar, 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:09.08.2022 Member Member President DCDRC, Jind
