Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/301/2020

Bharpai Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Univeral Sompo General Insurance company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar

04 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                      Complaint Case No.301 of 2020.                                                             

   Date of institution:24.11.2020.                                                          Date of decision: 04.06.2024

Bharpai Devi wife of Ramswaroop  resident of village Bosti Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Unit No.401, 4^th Floor, Sangam Complex 127, Andheri Kerla Road, Andheri (E) through its Branch/Divisional Manager.
2. State Bank of India, Bhuna, ADB Branch, District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

                                                                    ...Opposite parties.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Present:          Sh.Anil Kumar Punia, Advocate, for the complainant.                                 Sh. U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                  Sh.Sanjeev Mehta,Advocate for Op No.2.                                                                        

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.

 

 

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is owner in possession of approximately 6 acres of agriculture land situated at Village Bosti Tehsil & District Fatehabad; that the complainant has KCC loan account No.31963417688 with OP No.2; that Op No.2 had insured the crop of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the OP No.1 by deducting an amount of Rs.2773.05/- on 28.12.2018  in respect of crops of rabi 2018; that the complainant had sown wheat crop on the land in question but it got damaged; that the complainant intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed by the concerned department after visiting the spot; that other farmers of the same vicinity have already received the claim on account of damaged crop  but despite several requests and serving of legal notice upon the Ops, the claim for damaged crops has not been paid by the Ops to the complainant due to which complainant has suffered great financial losses. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

 

2.                           On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 filed in its written version wherein it has been submitted the present complaint is false and frivolous because the same has been filed by concealing the material facts and even the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to file the same; that all the farmers growing notified crops in a notified area during the season who have insurable interest in the crop were eligible and the enrolment under the said scheme, was subject to the possession of insurable interest on the cultivation of the notified crop in the notified area; that coverage was available upto a maximum period of 14 days from harvesting for those crops which are kept in cut and spread condition to dry in the field after harvesting against specific perils of cycle, cyclonic rains, unseasonal rains through the country; that in case of loanee farmers under compulsory component, the sum insured would be equal to scale of finance for that crop as fixed by District Level Technical Committee (DLTC) which may extend upto the value of the threshold yield of the insured crop at the option of insured farmer, where value of the threshold yield is lower than the scale of finance, higher amount shall be the sum insured; that the risk would be shared by IA and government and shall be up 35 % of the total premium collected (farmer share plus govt.subsidy) or 35 % of total sum insured of all the insurance companies companied whichever is higher; that the losses at the national level in a crop season beyond this ceiling shall be met by equal contribution (i.e. on 50:50 basis) from the Central Government and the concerned State Governments; that in the present case the complainant who has allegedly paid the premium amounts to Rs.2773.05 to insure and cover his wheat crop admeasuring in the area 2.78 hectare land in village Bosti Sub District Tohana District Fatehabad for a sum insured of Rs.1,84870/- through OP No.2; that a s per the data shared by government, the actual yield date is higher than the threshold yield and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the replying OP is not liable to pay any claim as alleged by the farmer. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                Op No.2 in its reply has taken several preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, maintainability and concealment of material facts etc. It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.2772.97/- was debited on 15.12.2018 on account of premium of wheat crop insurance of Rabi 2018-19;  that the premium of the complainant alongwith other farmers was sent to the Op No.1 within the stipulated period; that thereafter necessary miscellaneous correction, if any, after checking the record of farmers was also sent to the insurance company; that there is no lapse on the part of replying Op as the premium was accepted by the Op No.2 and is still lying with the insurance company, therefore, being the insurer the Op No.2 is liable to make the payment of damaged crop. Other contentions have also been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C10 whereas learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence documents Annexure-R2/1 to Annexure R2/3, whereas OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Annexure RW1/1 to Annexure R1/3.

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

6.                          Undisputedly, the insurance premium for insuring the wheat crop of the complainant was debited by the Op No.2 and was remitted to Op No.1.  Undisputedly, the complainant is having land at village Bosti where he has sown the wheat crop in 2.78 hectare of land and regarding this the Op No.2 in the certificate (Annexure C9) has mentioned that the village Bhuna has been mentioned in the portal instead of Bosti. The fact regarding deducting of Rs.2772.97/- by the Op No.2 on 15.12.2018 as insurance premium for wheat crop of Rabi 2019 is not disputed as is mentioned in Annexure R2/1. The Op No.2 has also admitted that the premium amount of the complainant alongwith other farmers was remitted to the Op no.1/insurance company and the same is still lying with it, therefore, the insurance company being insurer is liable to indemnify the loss of crop, if any caused to farmer. There are sufficient material available on the case file to show that the Op No.1 (insurance company) is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice and the Op No.2/bank is also found negligent in sending the wrong name of the village to the insurance company as is evident through Annexure C9 (Certificate). In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.1 (insurance company) only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainant for Rabi 2019. The complainant has not placed any document on the case file showing that he had ever given any intimation to the Ops with regard to crop loss as per operational guidelines, therefore, in the absence of any intimation, survey of the land in question could not be got conducted, hence, the localized claim is not payable to  the complainant.

7.                          The Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.36866.69/- per hectare to the Rabi crop (Wheat) in village Bosti (Annexure C10) where the land of complainant falls and as per record the complainant has suffered a loss in the land 2.78 hectare.   

8.                          Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.102489/- (in round figure) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7 % 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 costs.  In the present case, OP No.2-bank has given wrong name of the area in which land was under survey for the damage of crops.  The name of the area is actually Bosti while negligently; the officials of bank/OP No.2 have given wrong name of the area to be Bhuna.  So, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank/OP No.2 which shall be paid to the complainant.  The name of village be corrected in the record.  

9.                          In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents 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 Commission.                                                                 Dated: 04.06.2024

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                         (Harisha Mehta)                      (Rajbir Singh)                             

             Member                                  Member                                         President