BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 369 of 2019
Date of Institution : 02. 12.2019
Date of Decision : 09.08.2022
Satbir son of Jogi Ram 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. P.K. Gupta, 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 the filing of present complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist and he had sown paddy crop in 2 ½ acre land situated within revenue estate of village Garhwali 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.1385.48p were deducted on 30.07.2018 from his bank account no.3278008800013561 with OP No.1. The crop got completely damaged due to heavy rains. So, complainant informed on 26.09.2018 upon which, a committee conducted sample survey on 15.10.2018 and assessed losses to the paddy crop to the extent 75.5%. As per complainant, he suffered loss Rs.1,75,000/- to the crop but the Op No.2 illegally and arbitrarily assessed the loss at a lower side and paid Rs.13180.02p. Thus complainant submitted that a sum of Rs.1,61,819.98p 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.1,61,819.98p 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 had been issued by OP No.2. It is submitted that the answering OP has no knowledge about the damage of the crop to the complainant as mentioned in the complaint. No information with regard to the loss was given to the answering OP. OP has pleaded that 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 its part. On merits, it is admitted that insurance policy was issued to the complainant for coverage of paddy crop as per the PMFBY guidelines. OP received joint surveyor report regarding assessment of loss as per govt. guidelines, the Op company assessed loss of Rs.22,146.02 as localize manner and the said amount has been disbursed in the complainant’s bank account with PNB Gatauli. OP has 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.
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 affidavit Annexure OPW1/A and closed the evidence.
Counsel for OP No.2 placed on record affidavit of Sh. Arvind Singh Naruka 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 parties and perused the record very carefully.
5. 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 by 75.5%. The counsel has argued that complainant suffered loss of Rs.1,75,000/- for the paddy crop. But the OP insurance company paid only a sum of Rs.13,180.02p. 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.22,146.02p 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-5) placed on record by complainant, it is revealed that estimated loss to the paddy crop was 75.5%. As per intimation of crop loss form (Annexure C-4) sent by agriculture department to the OP insurance company, paddy crop was complainant standing in 2 ½ acre became affected. To prove ownership over the land, complainant has placed on record copy of jamabandi Annexure C-6. As per govt. notification (Annexure C-), the sum insured for the paddy crop was Rs.73,500/- per hectare. Therefore, calculating the actual loss to the paddy crop of complainant in 2 ½ acre while assessing loss at 75.5% comes to Rs.55,493/-, out of which, admittedly, complainant has received compensation of Rs.13,180/- for paddy crop from OP no.2 insurance company. However, the OP insurance company has alleged that it has paid a sum of Rs.22,146.02p. to the complainant but it has not placed on record any document which could show that the amount was disbursed to the complainant whereas complainant to prove the factum that he has received Rs.13,180.02p. has placed on record (Annexure C-2) copy of bank account wherein the said entry is posted. 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 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.42,313/- (Rs. Fourty two thousand three hundred thirteen) 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.369 of 2019
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. P.K. Gupta, 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:09.08.2022 Member Member President DCDRC, Jind
