BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.106 of 2019.
Date of institution: 18.04.2019.
Date of decision:01.06.2022.
Birbhan son of Sh. Dalla Ram r/o Village Kheri Rai Wali, Tehsil Dhand, Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- The Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Dhand, Distt. Kaithal.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, 4th Floor, The Statement, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Phase-I, next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager-160002.
….Respondents.
- Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Department Kaithal, Office at Secretariat, Kaithal.
..Performa Respt.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sethpal Rawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Dinesh Dhull, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Sh. A.K.Khurania, Adv. for the respondent No.2.
Smt. Ruchika, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT
Birbhan-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.
In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owned 7 acre of agriculture land situated at Village Kheri Rai Wali, Distt. Kaithal. It is alleged that the complainant has an account No.82178800006680 and 82148800003160 with the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 got insured the crop of complainant of Kharif 2017 and rabi 2018 under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the respondent No.2 and had deducted the amounts of Rs.2445.30 paise and 735.08 paise respectively as premium amount. It is further alleged that due to untimely heavy rainfall and lodging of heavy rainy water in the month of August, September, 2017 the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged/ruined. The complainant reported the matter to the respondent No.3 and the officials of respondents No.3 in return inspected the agriculture fields of complainant and assessed 25% to 30% damage of paddy crop of 2 acres of land. Similarly, during the rabbi season of 2018 in the month of March/April, 2018 the wheat crop of complainant was damaged and the complainant reported the matter to respondent No.3. The officials of respondent No.3 inspected the agriculture fields of complainant and assessed 45% to 50% damage of wheat crop of 2 acre land. The complainant has suffered a loss of approximately Rs.95,178/- i.e. Rs.21,426/- per acre for the said loss of crops for kharif 2017 (2 acre) and Rs.26,163/- per acre for rabi 2018 (2 acre). So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs-respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately. Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the answering Op has paid the insurance premium amount to the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Chandigarh and the insurance company had insured the crops under the scheme of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The claim amount would be paid by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op-respondent. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this commission; that regarding the wheat crop, the claim is not payable as reason for loss is not as per Operational Guidelines; that the complainant has not submitted the proper papers at the relevant time; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op. On merits, it is stated that the loss of crop was duly assessed by the competent authority and it was found that the loss was occurred 25-30% in 2 acres land only, whereas there was no loss in remaining 5 acres land subject to Operational Guidelines of the insurance policy; that as per Operational Guidelines and by perusing the documents, the claim amount comes to Rs.9369.36 paise and the payment will be processed by the answering Op. The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Op No.3 filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the farmer had given the intimation on 04.09.2017 and the same was sent to the Op No.1, further the committee conducted the survey and reported 35-40% loss in their report and the same was sent to Op No.2 for the settlement of claim timely; similarly the farmer had given the intimation on 09.04.2018 and the same was sent to the Op No.1, the committee conducted the survey and reported 25-30% loss in their report and the same was sent to Op No.2 for the settlement of claim timely. Hence, the Ops No.1 & 2 are responsible for delaying in the settlement of claim. The other allegations alleged in the complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ashwani, Branch Manager, Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2, the representative for Op No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.No.1 & 3. The Op No.2 did not produce any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of Op No.2 was closed vide court order dt. 02.03.2020.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
8. Sh. Sethpal Rawat, Adv. for the complainant has stated that the survey of 2 acres land was conducted by the Agriculture Department and an amount of Rs.9369.36 paise was awarded by the respondent No.2 as damages to the complainant for the paddy crop of Kharif, 2017.
9. On the other hand, Sh. Arvind Khurania, Adv. for the respondent No.2 has stated that at the time of survey, the farmer-complainant provided the wrong account number (82148800003160) which is not insured in the data base of respondent. It has been argued that as per Operational Guidelines and by perusing the documents, the claim amount comes to Rs.9369.36 paise. Ld. counsel for the complainant is not aware as to whether the complainant has received the aforesaid amount or not.
10. Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the respondent No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.9369.36 paise in the account No.82148800003160 of complainant, bank name-Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank within 45 days from today. Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly with cost. The cost is assessed as Rs.11,000/- which will be paid by the respondent No.2 to the complainant.
11. In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.: 01.06.2022.
(Dr. Neelima Shangla)
President.
(Rajbir Singh), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
