Haryana

Kaithal

220/19

Khazana - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Gurpal Ravish

05 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.220 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 01.08.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:05.01.2023.

Khazana son of Desh Raj aged 43 years, resident of Village Kithana, Sub Tehsil Rajound, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
2. The Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Kithana through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture, Kaithal.
   •  

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Gurpal Ravish, Advocate for the complainant.   

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

Sh. Suresh Kumar, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

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

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Khazana-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 an agriculturist by profession and he had sown the cotton crops in agriculture land measuring 7 acre out of total land measuring 56 Kanals 0 marla, detail mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  It is alleged that the bank account of complainant is lying in the OP No.2-bank and the policy of the crop was Rs.72,000/- per hectare.  It is further alleged that during the insurance period, the cotton crops of the complainant has destroyed due to rain fall and some natural climatic, 7 acres of cotton crops of complainant upto 80% whose credit account No.1783 and the respondents had paid Rs.7322/- in fact, the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.2,01,600/-.  The complainant requested the Ops to pay the said amount but they did not do so.  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 objection that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of cotton crop has been affected in Village Kithana, 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.  In fact, the complainant had taken the insurance of cotton crop through bank of the complainant and the answering respondent had paid Rs.7322/- for the assessed yield loss in cotton crop to the complainant.  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.  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.

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the answering respondent has only debited an amount of Rs.4164.23 paise as premium on behalf of PACS Kithana for complainant for 7 acres of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yozna to the respondent No.1 vide debit note dt. 18.07.2018; that the respondent No.1 is legally liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant has neither bank account with the answering respondent nor he availed any loan facility from the answering respondent.  The complainant has availed loan facility from the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society (PACS), Kithana.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Respondent No.3 filed the written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint 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 Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A, Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3, Op No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R4 to Annexure-R12 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

7.             We have heard the learned Counsel for 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.7322/- has already been given to the complainant which shall be deducted from the main amount of compensation.  The Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1210.05 paise per acre.  Hence, for 7 acre marla loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.8470/- (Rs.1210.05 paise x 7 acre loss).  It is clear that the amount of Rs.7322/- has already been given to the complainant.  Therefore, after deducting the amount of Rs.7322/- from the total compensation amount of Rs.8470/-, balance amount of Rs.1148/- shall be paid by the respondent No.1-insurance company to the complainant.   

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.1148/- 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.3300/- 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.:05.01.2023.

 

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.