Haryana

Kurukshetra

244/2018

Devinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance gen Ins - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Mar 2022

ORDER

 

 

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint No.244 of 2018

Date of Instt.:15.11.2018

Date of Decision:03.03.2022.

 

Devinder Singh son of Sh.Major Sucha Singh Village Julmat, Tehsil Pehowa District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                              Versus

 

1.Regional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.147-148, Sector -9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, RGICL R.O. Chandigarh.

2.Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Sector -7, Kurukshetra.

3. Manager, SBI, Branch Pehowa, Tehsil Pehowa District Kurukshetra.

 

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

                Complaint under Section  12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

                   Ms.Neelam Member.

                 

Present:     Complainant in person.

                 Sh.V.K.Garg Advocate for the OP No.1.

                 Dr.Mukesh Kumar, ADA for the OP No.2.

                 Sh.R.K.Harit Advocate for the OP No.3.

                  

                 This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Devinder Singh    against Reliance General Insurance Company   etc -the opposite parties.

 

2.             The brief facts of the complaint  are that the complainant is owner in possession of the agriculture land measuring 42 Kanal-15 Marlas which is situated in the revenue estate of village Zulmat and Kalsa Tehsil Pehowa district Kurukshetra. The complainant got KCC loan and has limits form State Bank of India Branch Pehowa vide account NO.65176150600. The complainant got insured his crops from the OP No.1 through SBI Branch Pehowa and paid premium of Kharif 2016 Rupees 1606.48 on 27.7.2016 from the said account. The crop of Kharif 2016 of the complainant was ruined by the hail storm. Deptt. of Agriculture and Farms Welfare Sector 7, Kurukshetra have given report of crops damaged to reliance general insurance  Company and survey of th3e fields of the complainant.  The crops in the crops of the complainant in the adjoining fields of the complainant and in the same khewat was also damaged but he got the compensation amount from OP No.1.The OP No.2  also wrote letter to the OP No.1 as well as OP No.3  for making payment of the compensation but nothing has been done.  The  OP No.1 is deferring the matter on the pretext that address given by the complainant is Pehowa rural in the SBI Branch Pehowa  in the said account. If there is any clerical mistake   about the address of agricultural land of the complainant, the same is at the instance of OP No.3 and the complainant cannot be blamed for the same and as such for non payment of the compensation, there is deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed that the Ops be directed to pay the compensation for the damages to the crops alongwith compensation for the deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops. OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that as per complaint, loss crops has been effected in village Julmat and village Kalsa, Tehsil Pehowa District Kurukshetra which have not been insured by the OP No.1. As per declaration form submitted by the Bank village Pehowa Rural, was insured with the OP No.1 for Kharif 2016 whereas complainant is claiming for village Julmat and kalsa which are not covered under the policy coverage and thus complaint is liable to be dismissed on both the grounds for non coverage of the village and no coverage of crops as well. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically and it was submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

4.             The OP No.1 filed its written statement  stating that there is no deficiency in services on the part of OP No..2. It is submitted that the claim of complainant is held because SBI Pehowa sent to the village name of farmer Pehowa  rural instead of Julmat. As per the operational guidelines of PMFBY village is a unit. So, due to the wrong village same, claim is held.  This mistake was committed by the Op No.3 and the OP No.3 will pay the claim. It is submitted that the farmer has  not submitted any intimation of hailstorm but in village Julmat , block Pehowa, claim arises on the basis of average  yield. As per the crop cutting experiment average, yield recorded 1879.22 Kg. per hectare as comprised threshold yield 3269.27 per hectare. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP No.2 specifically and it is submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

5.             OP No.3 has submitted that the complainant never intimated the OP No.3 about the matter in question. However, it is submitted that if the crop of the complainant is damaged, ruined by hail storm, then the OP) No.1 is liable to  pay compensation  as the crops of the complainant is insured with the OP no.1. No  reports of damaged crops have been submitted before the OP No.3.  It is not the duty of the bank to visit the spot. However,  it is the sole duty of the OP No.1 and 2  to visit the spot jointly and after survey, report about the damages of crops  to the OP No.1 and after satisfaction the Insurance sent the amount of compensation to the bank as per guidelines of the claim settlement. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP No.3 specifically and it is submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

6.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed his  evidence.

7.             The OP No.1 in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A

and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7 and closed its evidence.

8.             The OP No.2 in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed its evidence.

9.             On the other hand, OP No.3 in support of his its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW3/A and closed its evidence.

10.            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file very carefully.

11.            The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that complainant is owner in possession of the agriculture land measuring 42 Kanal-15 Marlas which is situated in the revenue estate of village Zulmat and Kalsa Tehsil Pehowa district Kurukshetra.  It is further argued  complainant got KCC loan and has limits form State Bank of India Branch Pehowa vide account NO.65176150600. The complainant got insured his crops from the OP No.1 through SBI Branch Pehowa and paid premium of Kharif 2016 Rupees 1606.48 on 27.7.2016 from the said account.  It is argued that the  crop of Kharif 2016 of the complainant was ruined by the hail storm. Deptt. of Agriculture and Farms Welfare Sector 7, Kurukshetra have given report of crops damaged to reliance general insurance  Company and survey of th3e fields of the complainant.   It is also argued that the  crops in the crops of the complainant in the adjoining fields of the complainant and in the same khewat was also damaged but he got the compensation amount from OP No.1. It is further argued that the  OP No.2  also wrote letter to the OP No.1 as well as OP No.3  for making payment of the compensation but nothing has been done.  The  OP No.1 is deferring the matter on the pretext that address given by the complainant is Pehowa rural in the SBI Branch Pehowa  in the said account. If there is any clerical mistake   about the address of agricultural land of the complainant, the same is at the instance of OP No.3 and the complainant cannot be blamed for the same and as such for non payment of the compensation, there is deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

12.            The learned counsel for the OP No.1 while reasserting the submissions made in the complaint has argued that  as per complaint, loss crops has been effected in village Julmat and village Kalsa, Tehsil Pehowa District Kurukshetra which have not been insured by the OP No.1.  It is further argued that  per declaration form submitted by the Bank village Pehowa Rural, was insured with the OP No.1 for Kharif 2016 whereas complainant is claiming for village Julmat and kalsa which are not covered under the policy coverage and thus complaint is liable to be dismissed on both the grounds for non coverage of the village and non coverage of crops as well.

13.            The learned  counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the claim of complainant is held because SBI Pehowa sent to the village name of farmer Pehowa  rural instead of Julmat. As per the operational guidelines of PMFBY village is a unit. So, due to the wrong village same, claim is held.  This mistake was committed by the Op No.3 and the OP No.3 will pay the claim. It is submitted that the farmer has  not submitted any intimation of hailstorm but in village Julmat , block Pehowa, claim arises on the basis of average  yield. As per the crop cutting experiment average, yield recorded 1879.22 Kg. per hectare as comprised threshold yield 3269.27 per hectare.

 

14.            The learned counsel for the OP No.3 has argued that submitted that if the crop of the complainant is damaged, ruined by hail storm, then the OP) No.1 is liable to  pay compensation  as the crops of the complainant is insured with the OP no.1.  It is argued that no   reports of damaged crops have been submitted before the OP No.3.  It is not the duty of the bank to visit the spot. It is further argued that however,  it is the sole duty of the OP No.1 and 2  to visit the spot jointly and after survey, report about the damages of crops  to the OP No.1 and after satisfaction the Insurance sent the amount of compensation to the bank as per guidelines of the claim settlement.

15.              In this case, OP No.1 has denied the claim of the complainant on the ground that crops has been effected in village Julmat and village Kalsa, Tehsil Pehowa District Kurukshetra which have not been insured by the OP No.1.  It is also stated that as per declaration form submitted by the Bank village Pehowa Rural, was insured with the OP No.1 for Kharif 2016 whereas complainant is claiming for village Julmat and kalsa which are not covered under the policy coverage. The fact that deduction of the premium was made from the account of the complainant is not in dispute. This is also not in dispute that crops of the complainant had damaged. There is difference of name of village in the insurance papers.  From the document mark “A: placed on the file during course of arguments,  if there is mismatch of village or data mismatch occurs, then it is the insurance  company is responsible to pay the   claim to the farmers. Same is question involved in this case. As per Ex.C-2 reply of the legal notice by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra,  the loss suffered by the complainant has been assessed at Rs.32649/-.Likewise, as per chart Ex.C-4, the loss suffered by the complainant is also shown as  Rs.32649/- and for not paying this amount of Rs.32649/- as compensation for damages to the crops, there is deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.1, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be accepted.

16.            For the reasons and findings recorded above, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 to pay the  amount of Rs.32649/-    to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e.  15.11.2018 till its actual realization.  The complainant shall also be entitled to Rs.5000/- in lump sum as compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. The OP No.1 is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of preparation of certified copies of this order, failing which the complainant would be entitled to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint qua OP no.2 and 3 stands dismissed.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per the rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated:3.03.2022.                                                        President.

 

                                Member                     Member.