BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 349 of 2019
Date of Institution : 26. 11.2019
Date of Decision : 24.08.2022
Ved Parkash son of Harivansh R/o Khera Bakhta Tehsil Julana, District Jind.
.….Complainant
Versus
- Punjab National Bank, Karela 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. Rajesh Goyat, 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 Khera Bakhta as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018. He is maintaining bank account no.1110008800000049 with OP No.1 bank and availed crop loan. 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.2739.56p and Rs.1358.53p on 31.07.2018 from the bank account were deducted by OP No.1. It is pleaded that his 2 ½ acre paddy crop and 4 acres cotton crop got completely damaged due to heavy rains on 24.09.2018. Information in this regard was given to Ops on 25.09.2018, upon which, survey was conducted and found loss to the extent of 70% of paddy crop and 80% of cotton crop. As per complainant, he 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/- and loss of cotton crop in 4 acres @ 10 quintals per acre i.e. 40 quintals and thereby suffered loss @ Rs.5000/- per quintal which works out to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus he suffered a total loss of Rs.3,75,000/- whereas OP insurance company paid only a sum of Rs.10,961.96p on 14.10.2019. Complainant has submitted that a sum of Rs.3,64,038.04p is still payable to him by OPs but they avoided the same on one pretext or the other which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred seeking relief of Rs.3,64,038.04p. as damages, Rs.30,000/- 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 insurance company. On merits, it is admitted that crop of complainant was insured with OP No.2. The answering OP deducted the amount of premium from the account of complainant and sent the same to the OP insurance company which was duly accepted. The OP has submitted that it has no knowledge about loss to the crop of complainant. The alleged assessment of loss was not carried out in the presence of OP. Complainant has urged that the liability to settle the claim is upon the insurance company as per terms of the policy whereas the OP bank is only a mediator and its duty was to deduct the premium and send the same to the insurance company. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and it is 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 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.1,33,610/- (Rs. One lac thirty 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 Bansal) President
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer.
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(G.D. Goyal)
Member
CC No.349 of 2019
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. Rajesh Goyat, 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
