Haryana

Kurukshetra

156/2017

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

State of Haryana - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Bedi

07 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.156 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 02.08.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:07.12.2018.

Ashok Kumar aged about 68 years, son of Shabhu Nath, resident of Village Lakhmari, Sub-Tehsil Babain, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra now resident of House No.2016, Housing Board Colony, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. State of Haryana through Collector, Kurukshetra.
2. Deputy Director Agriculture Department, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.147-148, 2^nd Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh-160009 through its Manager/Managing Director.
4. State Bank of India Branch Railway Road, Thanesar, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, through its Manager. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. M.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the complainant.

                Sh. Neeraj Rana, G.P. for Ops No.1 & 2.

                Sh. V.K.Garg, Adv. for the Op No.3.   

                Sh. K.K.Kaushik, Advocate for the OP.No.4.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Ashok Kumar against State of Haryana and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and having land measuring 16 kanals 0 marla, situated at Village Lakhmari, Sub-Tehsil Babain, Distt. Kurukshetra.  It is alleged that the complainant is maintaining KCC account No.33178224741 with the Op No.4 and the Ops have deducted Rs.2621.98 paise as premium of wheat crops under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana from the above-said account of complainant and the same was paid by DD/NEFT No.SBIN217025071551 dt. 24.01.2017 as crop insurance premium paid to Op No.3.  It is further alleged that the said premium was deducted from the account of complainant for the sum insured of Rs.2,11,448.23 paise.  It is further alleged that the wheat crops of complainant of above-said land started damaging due to collection of excessive water in the said fields and the complainant on 17.02.2017 informed/complaint the matter to Op No.2.  On 22.02.2017, the officials of Op No.2 visited the spot and submitted the report regarding the damage of crops as 50% loss.  The total loss was recorded by the Patwari at the time of recording the khasra girdawari on his visit which becomes to Rs.33,000/- per acre and total Rs.66,000/- as the crops have been recorded as 20 quintals per acre.  Inspite of information/complaint made by the complainant to the Ops in time, no amount was paid by the Ops to the complainant till today.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay Rs.66,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply separately.  Ops No.1 & 2 filed the joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that as per record mentioned in the complaint, the land measuring 16 kanals 0 marla was informed and started damaging due to inundation (Rainfall recorded on 26, 27.012017) and the farmers made a written complaint on 17.02.2017 which  was received on 17.02.2017.  In this regard, it is submitted that as per para XV (C) I of the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the immediate intimation (within 48 hours by the insured farmer) is necessary.  Due to late receipt of intimation, the field of the farmer was not surveyed by the notified committee (Block Agriculture Officer, Surveyor/Loss Assessor the RGICL and Concerned Farmer) as per para XV (c) iv, appointment of loss assessor by the insurance company; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the 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 that except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalized by government agencies on the basis of yield of crop and thereafter, claims were to be paid to bank of farmers.  The insurance company is playing a role of implementing agency in the scheme in accordance with guidelines prescribed by government.  Furthermore, in localized claims, three perils are covered under the scheme i.e. hailstorm, landslide and inundation affecting isolated farms in the notified area.  For localized claims, there was a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss; that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum because the complainant has approached this Forum with bad intention even without approaching to grievance cell of government agencies as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme.  The complainant should have approached to DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and the decision of said department would be binding on all state government/insurance company/banks and farmers.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             Op No.4 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant got insured his crop from the Op No.3 and the answering Op has no concern with the same.  The liability of pay anything is upon the Op No.3.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.             In support of his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             On the other hand, the Ops No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW3/A and closed the evidence.  The counsel of Op No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.3.  The counsel of Op No.4 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW2/A and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.4. 

8.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that he is owner of land measuring 16 kanals 0 marla and the complainant is maintaining KCC account with the Op No.4.  He further contended that the Ops have deducted Rs.2621.96 paise as premium of wheat crop under the scheme “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” from the account of complainant.  He further contended that the Ops have supplied one insurance note i.e. Ex.C2 to the complainant.  Ex.C1 is the account statement of complainant from which the Op No.4 has withdrawn Rs.2621.96 paise.  He further contended that the above-said land was damaged due to heavy rainfall.  On 17.02.2017 the complainant gave an application to the office of Deputy Director Agriculture Department, Kurukshetra-Op No.2 i.e. Ex.C5 regarding the damage of crops in his fields.  On 22.02.2017, the officials of Op No.2 visited at the spot and submitted report regarding the damage of crops, which is Ex.C6 which clearly shows that due to heavy rain, 50% of crops of complainant was damaged.  But the damage of crops was continuous and at last, all the crop was damaged due to heavy rainfall that was shown in the document in jamabandi and girdawari, which are Ex.C3 & Ex.C4.  In Ex.C4, it is clearly shown that all the crop was damaged due to heavy rainfall but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that the complainant has not given information about the damage of crops within 48 hours.  The counsel of complainant further contended that the crop of complainant was damaged not in one day, it was continuously damaged.  It was damaged 50% when the employees of department came which was shown in the document Ex.C6.  But it was totally damaged when the Patwari came in the village, so, it is a continuous damage of his crop.  He further contended that the complainant has informed the Ops regarding his damaged crops.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency on the part of Ops not to give the claim as per directions of scheme “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana”.

10.            Learned G.P. for the Ops No.1 & 2 contended that it is admitted fact that due to heavy rain in the area, the crops of farmers were damaged in the months of January and February, 2017.  Many applications came in the department of Op No.2 regarding the damage of crops due to heavy rain and information regarding damage was given to the Op No.3-insurance company regarding that damage.  The G.P. for Ops No.1 & 2 placed on record the documents Mark-A to Mark-E at the time of arguments and contended that as per scheme “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana’, one employee of the insurance company sit in the Agriculture Department and at that time, one Vimal Mishra was appointed as Manager of Reliance Company.  He further contended that the office of Deputy Director Agriculture Department received 109 applications which are mentioned in the document Mark-B within 48 hours and after 48 hours, the department has received 725 applications about the damage of crops.  The name of complainant is mentioned at Sr.No.687 in the list i.e. Mark-D.  The Agriculture Department gave all the applications to Vimal Mishra, who was employed by Op No.3, who sit in the office of Agriculture Department i.e. mentioned in the document Mark-C.  On this application, Vimal Mishra rejected all the claims which were came in after 48 hours i.e. mentioned in the document Mark-6.  The learned G.P. for Ops No.1 & 2 further contended that the Agriculture Department was duly informed about the damage of crop of complainant but the claim was repudiated by Op No.3 due to non filing of the claim within 48 hours.  So, there is no deficiency on the part of department.  It is the only deficiency on the part of Ops No.3 & 4 not to give the claim to the complainant.  The learned G.P. for Ops No.1 & 2 also contended that the premium amount is taken by the Ops No.3 & 4.  So, they are liable to give the claim to the complainant.  It is also contended by the G.P. that 4% of that premium remained in the account of Op No.4 and other amount was given to the Op No.3.  So, they have not taken any premium from the complainant.  He has drawn our attention towards the guideline mentioned at Sr.No.viii in the document Mark-A, wherein it is mentioned that “It is 4% of premium remitted by banks.  Must be duly stamped and signed”. 

11.            Learned counsel for the Op No.3 contended that the intimation was not given to the Op No.3 i.e. most important condition in the scheme  “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana”.  The counsel of Op No.3 further contended that the complainant has given information to the Op No.2 only about the damage of crop.  Moreover, it was not given within the 48 hours which was mandatory condition of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana”.  Due to not given the information to them, no survey was done by the employee of Op No.3.  So, the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.  The counsel of Op No.3 placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2010(2) CPC page 1 titled as M/s. Dilawari Exporters Vs. M/s. Alitalia Cargo & others (SC) and submitted a copy of order dt. 16.04.2018 passed by Hon’ble National Commission bearing revision petition No.3957 of 2017 titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Awadh Singh.

12.            Learned counsel for the Op No.4 contended that the duty of Op No.4 is only to take premium from the account of complainant and to give the same to the Op No.3.  There is no deficiency on the part of Op No.4.  It is the duty of Ops No.1 to 3 to assess the damage and to give the claim to the complainant. 

13.            We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  We are fortified with the contentions of counsel for the complainant.  From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is admitted fact that the crop of complainant was damaged due to heavy rain.  It is also admitted fact that the premium was deducted by the bank-Op No.4 under the scheme “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana”.  The said scheme is for the benefit of farmers in case of damage of the crops.  The guidelines mentioned in the document Ex.R2, as per scheme “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” are as under:-

“1.    Objective of the Scheme

        Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) aims at supporting sustainable production in agriculture sector by way of:-

1. Providing financial support to farmers suffering crop loss/damage arising out of unforeseen events.
2. Stabilizing the income of farmers to ensure their continuance in farming
3. Encouraging farmers to adopt innovative and modern agricultural practices
4. Ensuring flow of credit to the agriculture sector; which will contribute to food security, crop diversification and enhancing growth and competiveness of agriculture sector besides protecting farmers from production risks”. 

           It is the duty of Op No.3 to give the claim on account of damage caused due to heavy rain.  The crop of complainant was damaged not in one day, it was continuous damaged and at least totally damaged.  The contention of Op No.3 that no information was given about the damage of the crop to the company has no force because on perusal of file, it is clear that the Ops No.1 & 2 gave information about the damage of crop to the Op No.3.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency on the part of Op No.3.  The authorities submitted by the counsel for Op No.3 are not disputed but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case.  In the present case, the complainant has demanded Rs.66,000/- but we assess the loss as Rs.22,000/- per acre as per calculation mentioned in the document Ex.C2, therefore, the total loss comes to Rs.44,000/- (Rs.22,000/-x2 acre).

14.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint against Op No.3 and direct the Op No.3 to pay Rs.44,000/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony.  The Op No.3 is also directed to pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainant as litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.            

Announced in open court:

Dt.:07.12.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.