Haryana

StateCommission

A/875/2016

IFFCO TOKIO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURENDER - Opp.Party(s)

G.D.GUPTA

02 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    875 of 2016

Date of Institution:  26.09.2016

Date of Decision:    02.02.2017

 

1.      IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., C/o Hafed District Office, SCO 19-20, Part-1, Sector 12, Karnal through its Manager.

2.      IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Rohtak through its Branch Manager.

Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

 

 

Versus

 

1.      Surender Singh S/o Ram Phal R/o Village Khranti, District Rohtak.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Prathmik Krishi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Village Chandi, District Rohtak through its Manager.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.3

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member  

 

 

 

 

Argued:               Shri G.D. Gupta, Advocate for appellants

                             Shri M.S. Bitta, Advocate for the complainant

                             (Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated 25^th October, 2016)

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and its functionary-opposite parties No.1 & 2 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) are in appeal against the order dated June 21^st, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Surender Singh -complainant was allowed.  Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.18,700/- (sum insured) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint, that is, September 18^th, 2013 till its realization and Rs.3500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant on account of damage to his wheat crop due to heavy rain. 

2.      The complainant was owner in possession of agricultural land situated in Village Kharainti, District Rohtak.  The crop was insured with the Insurance Company by the State Government under Modified National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (MNAIS) (for short, ‘scheme’). He suffered loss to his wheat crop for the year 2012-13 on account of torrential rainfall. The 20% of the farmer’s premium, that is, Rs.374/- was paid by the farmer and remaining 80% was paid by the State Government.  The crop was got verified by the revenue officials and it was mentioned in the Khasra Girdawari (Exhibit C-4) that the crop was damaged.  These facts are not denied at bar by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 

3.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the loss was not covered under the scheme.  Reference was made to the scheme (Annexure R-2) under the heading:-

‘Claim shall be calculated as per the following formula’:-

          (Threshold Yield – Actual Yield)  X Sum Insured  

                          Threshold Yield

           

4.      As per the statement showing average yield of crops covered under the scheme in Haryana during Rabi 2012-13 and number of crop cutting experiments planned and conducted during Rabi 2012-13 on wheat crop, the actual yield of the year 2012-13 in Village Kharanti, that is, the village where the loss had occurred was 4105 Kg, that is, 41 quintal 5 kg per hectare. 

5.      This Commission does not concur with the submission of learned counsel for the Insurance Company because it is not in dispute that the complainant has suffered loss as has been mentioned in Exhibit C-4 and he paid the premium of 20% and remaining 80% paid by the State Government and the actual yield of Rabi 2012-13 was 4105 Kg per hectare in Village Kharanti.  Since the crop was damaged, the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the complainant. The impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.13,560/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

 

Announced 02.02.2017

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 UK