Haryana

Kaithal

22/20

Gurdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Hem Raj Wadhwa

24 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.22 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 15.01.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:24.01.2023.

Gurdeep Singh aged 26 years s/o Sh. Karambir, resident of Village Parbhawat, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhand Road, near IDBI Bank Kaithal through its Branch Manager, Kaithal.
2. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd., Dhand Road, Kaithal, 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. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                Sh. Arvind Khurania, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

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

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

       Gurdeep 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 32 Kanals 3 Marlas, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint  and got insured the same with the respondent No.1-insurance company under the Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) scheme and an amount of Rs.9172.80 paise has been debited from the  account of complainant bearing No.086151000070 by the respondent No.2-bank.  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 4 acres of agriculture land and damage of paddy crops in the said 4 acres of land, the loss caused due to water logging due to flood in the fields of complainant which comes to Rs.1,14,400/- (i.e. Rs.28,600/- per acre x 4 acres).  It is further alleged that despite repeated requests and demands, the respondent No.1 has not made the claim amount to the complainant.  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.  Respondents No.1 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 as per averments of the complaint, the loss of paddy crop has been affected in Village Parbhawat, Distt. Kaithal, due to the reason mentioned as “Heavy 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.  If any mistake is done by bank of complainant or other institution, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim; 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 stated that till date no intimation has been received by answering respondent regarding loss of alleged crop.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that the scheme of Pardhan Mantri Bima Yojna was introduced by Govt. of India and is being implemented by State of Haryana, hence Govt. of India & State of Haryana are necessary parties for just decision of this complaint; that complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for which, elaborate evidence is required to be adduced.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.     

4.             Respondents No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction and evasively denied all the facts contained in the complaint.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             To prove her case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.  Respondent No.2 did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of respondent No.2 was closed vide court order dt. 16.11.2022.

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

8.             ­­­­Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA Rep. has appeared on behalf of Agriculture Department, Kaithal and he has submitted the approximately crop claim based on Village Survey, under PMFBT.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.10454.40 paise per acre.  Hence, for 4 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.41,818/- (Rs.10454.40 paise x  4 acre).      

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.41,818/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted with cost.  The cost is assessed as Rs.5500/- which will be paid by the respondent No.1-insurance company to the complainant.     

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent No.1 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 the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:24.01.2023.

 

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.