Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 294.
Instituted on : 19.06.2019.
Decided on : 28.12.2020.
Sanjeev Kumar age 39 years, son of Mulakh Raj resident of village Kahnaur Tehsil Kalanaur District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- State of Haryana through Collector Rohtak.
- Universal Sompo General Insurance company Ltd., Unit No.401, 4th Floor, Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai through its Manager.
- HDFC Bank Ltd. Jhajjar through its Branch manager.
- Deputy Director of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department Haryana, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sandeep Kumar Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sunil Jangra, ADA for the OP No.1 & 4 alongwith
Sh.Vikas Kumar(S.A) for opposite party No.4.
Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Sh.Gulshan chawla, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is agriculturist and is owner in possession of agriculture land situated at Village Kanhnaur Tehsil Kalanaur District Rohtak. The complainant had availed Kissan Credit card loan facility from opposite party No.3. In Kharif 2018, the complainant had sown paddy crop in the land measuring 20.4 acres. The crop sown by the complainant was insured from respondent no.2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojana and the premium amounting of Rs.10290/- was deducted from the account of complainant on dated 10.08.2018. The complainant took proper care of his crop time to time due to heavy rains/flood, the water entered in the above said fields of the complainant and the standing crop was completely damaged. That complainant sent the information of damages to the opposite parties well in time and the employees/officers of opposite parties inspected the site on 05.10.2018 and found that the complainant had suffered 60% loss of 20.4 acres land. The average income from paddy crop is Rs.50000/- per acre and as such loss suffered by complainant comes to Rs.30000 per acre and for 20.4 acres comes to Rs.612000/-. Complainant requested the opposite parties a number of times to pay the alleged claim but to no result. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim of Rs.612000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. on account of damages of crops, Rs.200000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment and Rs.55000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 4 in their reply has submitted that there is no role of respondent no.1 & 4 in any part. The complainant paid amount of crop insurance to the company through bank and if there is any loss to the complainant, company is responsible to make the compensation to the complainant. On merits, it is submitted that the intimation of crop loss due to inundation was submitted by the complainant to respondent no.4 on dated 27.09.2018. The survey was conducted by the survey team and report was sent to respondent no.2 for further necessary action. The application dated 17.05.2019 submitted by the complainant was also sent to respondent no.2 for further necessary action. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be matter of record and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that the most of the facts are related to the insurance company and has no concern with the answering respondent. However, it is submitted that the Bank has a right to charge interest on the outstanding amount and the answering respondent is not committing any wrong. The insurance claim was to be considered by the respondent no.2 and not by respondent no.3. The answering respondent has no other role to play in the settlement of the insurance claim. The complainant has no cause of action for filing the present complaint against the answering respondent. It is prayed that the complaint qua the answering respondent may kindly be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant having opted for the Kisan Credit Card loan facility from opposite party no.3 is a matter of record. It is denied that complainant had suffered damages in his crop. It is also denied that the official of the opposite party visited the spot for inspection or any survey was got done by answering respondent on 05.10.2018 and the complainant had suffered a loss to the extent of 60% of the sown paddy crop. It is submitted that as per the records of answering respondent, the amount could not be assessed and paid to the complainant, as per the surveyor form forwarded to the office of answering respondent, the affected area was not entered in the form by the concerned official of respondent no.4. The affected area name has to be entered by the joint committee comprises of the farmer himself, the surveyor and the government officer. Hence answering respondent could not assess and pay the loss amount. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, opposite party no.2 has also filed amended written statement on dated 05.11.2020 alongwith affidavit and documents.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 14.11.2019. Complainant has also submitted a document ‘Annexure-JNA’ at the time of arguments. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 4 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, and closed his evidence on 10.01.2020. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.R2/1 to Ex.RW2/2 and closed his evidence on 24.08.2020. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has also tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.RW2/3 to Ex.RW2/4 in amended evidence and closed his evidence on dated 05.11.2020. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, document Ex.R3/1 and closed his evidence on 29.11.2019.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present complaint, the complainant pleaded that he has suffered loss in his 20.4 acres of agricultural land. He sown paddy crops in his fields and due to ‘Heavy rain/flood’ the complainant’s crops damaged and his crop was insured with the opposite parties. As per copy of statement of account placed on record as Ex.C3, premium amount of Rs.10290/- was debited from the account of complainant on dated 10.08.2018 on account of “PMFBY(Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana) KH-18, PADDY”. Meaning thereby, the complainant’s crop of 20.4 acres was insured through respondent no.1. We have also perused the amended written version, affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 regarding crops as well as document Ex.RW2/2 placed on record by the respondent no.2 i.e. detail of Pradhan Mantri Fasal bima Yojana(PMFBY). In fact one another clause is mentioned in this policy which is 15.3.1 as per which, it is mentioned that : “Loss assessment and modified indemnity procedures in case of occurrence of localized perils, such as hailstorm, landslide, flood, and inundation shall be for a cluster of affected farms or affected village and the settlement of claim, if any, will be each insurer farmer covered under assessment. As per 15.3.2, “The District Administration will assist IA in assessing the extent of loss”. Meaning thereby the assessment regarding loss due to hailstorm, landslide, flood, and inundation has been covered by the department. We have also perused the report issued by the loss assessor Ex.C1/Ex.RW2/1, as per which the yield of the farmer was damaged due to flood. Hence the loss is covered under clause 15.3.1 of the policy. As per copy of report of assessment of loss Ex.C1, the field of the complainant was inspected by the committee comprising of two members i.e. loss assessor of company and Block Agriculture officer in the presence of complainant on 05.10.2018 and complainant suffered 60% loss in his crops. Copy of Nakal Jamabandi Ex.C4 is also placed on record.
8. Hence from the documents placed on record, it is established that the complainant’s crop was damaged to the extent of 60% due to ‘Flood’. On the other hand, as per the respondent insurance company i.e. opposite party No.2 has pleaded in his amended written statement that they have received premium amount of Rs.10290/- to the paddy crop/Dhaan of the complainant for the area 7 hectare in village Kahnaur District Rohak for the sum insured for the said paddy crop was Rs.514500/- through his HDFC bank account vide Account no.50200008519500 for the Kharif 2018. As such, complainant is entitled for loss 60% loss suffered by him in his alleged 7 hectares of land i.e. Rs.308700/-
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.308700/-(Rupees three lac eight thousand seven hundred only) towards loss of crops alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.19.06.2019 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
28.12.2020.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
