BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 350 of 2019
Date of Institution : 26. 11.2019
Date of Decision : 24.08.2022
Murti Devi wife of Subhash Rathi @ Subhash Chander 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. She is maintaining bank account no.1110008800010406 with OP No.1 bank and availed crop loan. Her paddy crop was insured with OP No.2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (in short PMFBY) and for this purpose a sum of Rs.1710.31p. deducted on 31.07.2018 from her bank account with OP No.1. It is pleaded that three acre paddy crop got damaged completely due to heavy rain on 24.09.2018. Information in this regard was given to Ops on 25.09.2018, upon which, survey was conducted and loss was found to the extent of 70% of paddy crop. As per complainant, she suffered loss of paddy yield about @ 20 quintals per acre, and thus a total loss 3 acres comes to 60 quintals and thereby suffered loss @ Rs.3500/- per quintals which works out to the tune of Rs.2,10,000/- but the Op No.2 illegally and arbitrarily assessed the loss to the crop of complainant Rs.10,262.07p and Rs.15085.24p. paid on 05.08.2019 and 04.10.2019 respectively. Thus complainant submitted that a sum of Rs.1,84,652.69p. is still payable to the complainant 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.1,84,652.69p. as damages and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pains and harassment besides 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.25,347.31p as localized manner and same has been disbursed in complainant’s bank account with OP Bank. 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 paddy crop sown in 3 acre got flooded with water and damaged by 70%. The counsel has argued that complainant suffered loss of Rs.2,10,000/- for the paddy crop. But the OP insurance company paid only a sum of Rs.25,347.31p. 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.25,347.31p. 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 report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-5) placed on record by complainant, it is revealed that estimated loss to the paddy crop was 70%. Further, as per Annexure C-4, paddy crop of complainant affected in 3 acre. To prove ownership over the land, complainant 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.73,500/- per hectare (Rs.29,400/- per acre). Therefore, calculating the actual loss to the paddy crop of complainant in 3 acre while assessing loss at 70% comes to Rs.61,740/-, out of which, admittedly, complainant has received compensation of Rs.25,347/- 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, 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 loss caused to the complainant for paddy crop in 3 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.36,393/- (Rs. Thirty six thousand three hundred ninety three) 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:24.08.2022 (Mukesh Bansal) President
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer.
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(G.D. Goyal)
Member
CC No.350 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
