BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 309 of 2019
Date of Institution : 18. 11.2019
Date of Decision : 24.08.2022
Satpal son of Sh. Bharthu R/o VPO Garhwali Tehsil Julana District Jind.
.….Complainant
Versus
- The Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Ltd. Julana District Jind.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No.156-159 Sector 9 C, Chandigarh.
3. State of Haryana through Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Departmnt, Jind.
……Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM: SH. MUKESH BANSAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT. NEERU AGARWAL, MEMBER.
SH. G.D. GOYAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. G.R. Parmar, learned counsel for OP No.2.
Sh. Navneet Kumar, Assistant Statistical Officer on behalf of OP No. 3.
OP No.1 exparte vide order dated 27.02.2020.
ORDER
The facts giving rise to filing of this complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist having land situated within revenue estate of village Garhwali Khera as per jamabandi for the year 2015-2016. His paddy and cotton crop was insured with OP No.2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (in short PMFBY) and for this purpose a sum of Rs.2025.45p was deducted from his bank account with OP No.1. 3.60 acre paddy crop got damaged completely due to heavy rains and information in this regard was given to the OP insurance company as well as Agriculture Department, upon which, survey was conducted on 12.08.2017 and found loss was found to the extent of 100%. Complainant claims to have suffered loss of paddy yield in 3.60 acre @ 20 quintals per acre i.e. 72 quintals @ Rs.3500/- per quintal which works out to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/-. But Ops avoided the damages on one pretext or the other which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Complaint has been preferred seeking relief of Rs.2,52,000/- as damages, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pains and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, Op no.1 failed to appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.02.2020.
Ops No.1 & 3 filed their respective written statements.
OP No.2- insurance company filed its reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. On merits, it is admitted that crop of complainant was insured with it for coverage of paddy crop as per the PMFBY guidelines. It is stated that complainant was paid an amount of Rs.31,903/- on 25.05.2018 for the loss suffered due to inundation towards localized claim. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and no mental pain and agonies have been caused to the complainant at the hands of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
OP No.3-agriculture department in the reply raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous. Further, complainant is not consumer of OP No.3 and therefore complaint does not lie against the answering Op. Complaint has been filed with ulterior motive to extract money from it and that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that the survey was conducted is a matter of record, however, denied any kind of compensation to the complainant from the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. To buttress his complaint, complainant placed on record his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence.
On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.2 placed on record affidavit Annexure OPW2/A alongwith documents as Anneuxre OP2/1 to OP2/4 and closed the evidence. The counsel for OP No.3 placed on record affidavit OPW3/A and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record very carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that due to heavy rains his paddy crop sown in 3.60 acre got flooded with water and damaged completely. The counsel has argued that complainant suffered loss of Rs.2,52,000/- for the paddy crop. But the OP insurance company did not pay any amount towards compensation. Complainant’s counsel has argued that the act & conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as harassment to the complainant.
On the other hand, learned counsel for Op No.2 argued that the complainant’s paddy crop was insured with it and claim was assessed to the tune of Rs.31,903/- which was paid to the complainant on 25.05.2018. As such, the counsel has argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP insurance company and argued for dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. It is admitted by the OP insurance company that the paddy crop of complainant was insured and on receiving intimation of loss of paddy crop, fields were inspected and as per survey certificate of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-3) placed on record by complainant, it is revealed that loss to the paddy crop was 100%. Further, paddy crop of the complainant was standing in 3.60 acre became affected. To prove ownership over the land, complainant has placed on record copy of jamabandi Annexure C-4. As per insurance certificate (Annexure C-5), the sum insured for the paddy crop was Rs.75,500/- per hectare (Rs.28,600)/- per acre. Therefore, calculating the loss to the paddy crop of complainant in 3.6 acre while assessing loss at 100% comes to Rs.1,02,960/-. OP insurance company has alleged in their pleadings that Rs.31,903/- were paid to the complainant on account of loss to the paddy crop but no document to corroborate this fact has been placed on record. Therefore, this contention of OP insurance company is not believable and goes against it. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the OP insurance company has arbitrarily & illegally, partially not paid any amount to the complainant for the crop loss whereas, the complainant was squarely entitled for the loss caused to him. So, the OP No.2 insurance company is held liable to indemnify the loss caused to the complainant for paddy crop in 3.6 acres. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the OP No.2 insurance company is directed to comply with the following directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order:-
(i) To pay Rs.1,02,960/- (Rs. One lac two thousand nine hundred sixty) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till the date of actual realization. In case of default, the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till the actual realization.
(ii) And to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
- Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousand) as litigation expenses.
Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs, on usual terms. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced on:24.08.2022 (Mukesh Bansal) President
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer.
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(G.D. Goyal)
Member
CC No.309 of 2019
Present: Sh. R.S. Narwal, learned counsel for complainant.
Sh. G.R. Parmar, learned counsel for OP No.2.
Sh. Navneet Kumar, Assistant Statistical Officer on behalf of OP No. 3.
OP No.1 exparte vide order dated 27.02.2020.
Arguments concluded. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint has been allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced:24.08.2022 Member Member President DCDRC, Jind
