Haryana

Kaithal

223/19

Rajbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Gurpal Ravish

23 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.223 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 01.08.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:23.01.2023.

Rajbir son of Shishu Ram aged 45 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. Sudeep Malik, 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

        Rajbir-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 seven agres out of agriculture land measuring 16 Kanals 0 marla out of total land measuring 183 Kanals 12 marlas, 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, 2 acres of cotton crops of complainant upto 80% whose credit account No.1987 and the respondents had paid Rs.2528/- in fact, the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.57,600/-.  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.2528/- 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.1165.50 as premium on behalf of PACS Kithana for complainant for 2 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 document Annexure-R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

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

8.             In the present case, the Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1210.05 paise per acre.  Hence, for 2 acre loss, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.2420.10 paise (Rs.1210.05 paise x  2 acre).   It has brought to the notice of this court by Sh. Gurpal Ravish, Adv. for the complainant that the amount of Rs.2528/- 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.:23.01.2023.

  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.