Haryana

Kaithal

275/20

Manoj Kumar - 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.275 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 01.09.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:24.01.2023.

1. Manoj Kumar 2. Jarnail Singh aged 29 years Ss/of Sh. Baljeet Singh, residents of Village Mator, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainants.

                        Versus

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

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 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 complainants.   

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                Sh. R.K.Nagpal, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Sh. Sunil Kumar, PO Rep. for the respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

       Manoj Kumar and Jarnail Singh-Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainants are the owners of land measuring 31 Kanals  Marlas being ½ share of the land measuring 62 Kanals 4 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 complainants have joint bank account bearing No.65250399967 with the respondent No.2.  It is further alleged that the complainants have already insured their paddy crop sown on approximately 31 kanals 2 marla with the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 has deposited an amount of Rs.2319/- as compensation in the joint account of complainants.  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 complainants are owners of approximately 31 kanals 2 marla (3 Acre 7 Kanal) and the loss at the rate of Rs.28,600/- per acre which comes to Rs.1,10,825/- (i.e. Rs.28,600/- x 3 acre 7 kanal).  It is further alleged that the complainants 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 in the present complaint, the complainants is claiming for loss of paddy crops due to inundation and water logging and total yield loss of the village in the sum of Rs.19,64,815/- vide UTR No.9519220846814 dt. 05.04.2019 has already been paid to the banker of complainants i.e. respondent No.2 for onward crediting in the respective accounts of loanee farmers including the complainants; 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 complainants himself or bank of complainants 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 complainants never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of paddy crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainants 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, the 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 complaint filed by the complainants is not maintainable against the answering respondent as the answering respondent on the authorization of the complainants is paying the amount of premium of insurance to respondent No.1.  The answering respondent has nothing to do with the insurance claim.  The respondent No.1 is a separate entity and an independent agency.  The answering respondent has no role in adjudication of this sort of claim.  Thus, the answering respondent is neither a proper nor a necessary party for just decision of this complaint.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent.  On merits, it is stated that it is wrong to suggest that an amount of Rs.2308/- is being debited from the joint accounts of complainants for more than 5 years.  In fact, the said amount of Rs.2308/- was debited only on 30.07.208.  It is further relevant to mention here that an amount of Rs.2319/- was credited in the account of complainants on 12.04.2019.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted 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 complainants tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3, the respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R4 to Annexure-R8, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

8.             Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the respondent No.1-insurance company has stated that in the report given by Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer’s Welfare Department, Kaithal, in the column of  name of crop-Paddy 2018 is mentioned while in the claim based on localized survey, intimation received regarding the crop is Cotton + Bajra which seems to be a typographical mistake as in the document provided by OIC-Insurance Company, the name of crop is written to be paddy (Dhan) as the letter is addressed by Assistant Statistical Officer, Agriculture Department.  In another letter dt. 07.08.2020 in the reply as per R.T.I. Act, 2005 the crop is mentioned to be paddy.

                Heard.  There appears to be a typographical mistake in the report given by Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer’s Welfare Department, Kaithal in which he has written the claim based on localized survey regarding the crop of Cotton + Bajra while three lines above, he has written the name of crop to be Paddy-2018.  Hence, the claim for paddy is valid.  In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8078.40 paise per acre.  Hence, for 3 7 kanal 2 marla loss, the complainants is entitled for the amount of Rs.31,405/- (Rs.24,235/- for 3 acre + Rs.7069/- for 7 kanal + Rs.101/- for 2 marla loss).  It is an admitted fact that that the amount of Rs.2319/- has already been received by the complainants.  Therefore, after deducting the amount of Rs.2319/- from the total compensation amount of Rs.31,405/-, balance amount of Rs.29,086/- shall be paid by the respondent No.1-insurance company to the complainants.   

9.             Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.29,086/- to the complainants 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 complainants.        

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.