Haryana

Kaithal

54/20

Dalbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Hem Raj Wadhwa

20 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.54 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 04.02.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:20.12.2022.

Dalbir Singh, aged 50 years S/o Sh. Mewa Singh R/o Ramsa Patti, VPO Pai, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, near IDBI Bank Kaithal through its Branch Manager, Kaithal.
2. State Bank of India, Pai Branch through its Branch Manager.
3. The Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Kaithal.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                Sh. D.R.Saini, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. for the respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

       Dalbir Singh-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 the owner of land measuring 9 kanals 0 marla, as detail mentioned in para No.2 of the complaint and got insured the same with the respondent No.1-company under the Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) scheme.  It is alleged that the complainant has saving bank account bearing No.33873669789 with the respondent No.2.  It is further alleged that the complainant has already insured his paddy crop sown on approximately 9 kanals 0 marla with the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 has deposited an amount of Rs.2582/- as compensation in the account of complainant.  It is alleged that the respondent No.3 has published pamphlet regarding insurance of kharif crops for the year 2017-18 and also told about the insurance coverage of paddy crop is Rs.71,500/- per Hectare i.e. Rs.28,600/- per acre and complainant is owner of approximately 9 kanals 0 marla (1 Acre 1 Kanal) and the loss at the rate of Rs.28,600/- per acre which comes to Rs.32,170/- (i.e. Rs.28,600/- x 1 acre a kanal).  It is further alleged that the complainant moved an application to the respondent No.1 to make payment of compensation due to loss to the paddy crops but inspite of repeated requests, the respondent No.1 has failed to make the compensation to him.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  Respondent No.1 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Pai, Distt. Kaithal due to the reason mentioned as “Rain Fall” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under the PMFBY Scheme and to prove the same, no documentary proof of any kind has been annexed with the complaint; that role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institutions that are part of this scheme.  However, it is made clear that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers; that the complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, it is submitted that the complainant was entitled for yield loss amounting to Rs.2582/- and the same was paid/deposited in the account of complainant through his bank as per terms and conditions of the scheme.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondents No.2 filed the reply filed the reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the premium amount was debited from KCC account of complainant on 31.07.2018 for Fasal Bima Yojna of Kharif 2017-18 and such premium amount was remitted to respondent No.1 in their account No.0248002100026528 of PNB through NEFT bearing UTR No.SBINR52001808240002067 on 31.07.2018 itself alongwith premium amount of other farmers also.  Soft copy of consolidated detailed list of farmers/proposals/declarations pertaining to different villages (who were loanee farmer of SBI Pai) including that of present complainant were prepared by respondent No.2 and same was also submitted to respondent No.1 on 31.07.2018.  It is further stated that the respondent No.1 had already received consolidated premium amount on behalf of present complainant and other farmers amounting to Rs.15,85,477/- which also includes the premium amount of Rs.1838/- debited from KCC account of present complainant alongwith uploaded consolidated list of farmers/proposals/declarations contenting details of each farmers including that of present complainant and data was uploaded on PMFBY Portal within prescribed time, so, respondent No.1 was under legal obligation to issue respective crop insurance cover in favour of complainant to process as to adjudicate their claim, if any, as per Operational Guidelines of PMFBY, Insurance law, law of contract and notification dt. 17.06.2016 as per crop insurance policy.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Respondent No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi and evasively denied all the facts contained in the complaint and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C11 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.R3, the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R2, respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R3 to Annexure-R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Adv. for the respondent No.1-insurance company has stated that the amount of Rs.2582/- has already been given to the complainant on 16.04.2019 as per statement of account-Annexure-C3, which shall be deducted from the main amount of compensation.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1148.49 paise per acre.  Hence, for 1 acre 1 Kanal loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.1292/- (Rs.1148.49 paise for 1 acre+Rs.144/- for 1 kanal).  It is clear that the amount of Rs.2582/- has already been paid to the complainant.  So, no claim is outstanding against the respondents.  Nothing more to be adjudicated in the present complaint.  Hence, this case is disposed of accordingly.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.12.2022.

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.