Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/356/2019

mahabir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sampo General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

A.K Poonia

11 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.356 of 2019.                                                              Date of Instt.: 28.08.2019.                                                                         Date of Decision: 11.09.2023.

1.Mahabir aged 36 years son of Shri Krishan Kumar, resident of village Bosti, Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad. 2.Chhotu Ram aged 32 years son of Shri Krishan Kumar resident of Bosti, Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainants.

                                     Versus     

1.Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Unit No.401, 4^th floor Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri Kerla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400059 through its Branch/Divisional Manager.                                                     2.Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Ltd. Village Buwan District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.Anil Kumar, Advocate for complainants.                                             Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                  Sh.Inder Singh Sihag, Advocate for Op No.2.                                                  

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

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainants are owners in possession of joint land as mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint situated at Village Bosti Tehsil & Fatehabad. It is alleged that the complainants have availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility bearing No.81568800013653; that the complainants got the standing kharif crops insured with the Op No.1 on 31.07.2018 and in this regard insurance premium to the tune of Rs.1542.98/- was debited from their joint account by Op No.2 and credited in the account of Op No.1; that the complainants had sown rice, bajra and cotton crop on the above said land; that the crops of the complainants got damaged due to hailstorm and accumulation of the water, therefore, the complainants moved an application to the agriculture department and thereon the loss was confirmed by the concerned agriculture authorities; that despite several requests the claim for lost crops has not been paid by the Ops and now the Ops have refused to do so, due to which complainants have suffered great financial losses. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.                          Op No.1 filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that the complainant has not submitted that the assessment report and even not intimated to it about the crop damaged, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part; that the complainant has even not submitted the repudiation letter, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Other contentions of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to suppression of material facts, cause of action, maintainability and jurisdiction; that amount of premium of Rs.1542.93 for insuring the khariff crop 2018 (cotton) in land measuring 12 kanal i.e. 0.607 Hectare and 9 kanal i.e. 0.455 hectare (for paddy crop) was debited on 31.07.2018 from the loan account of the complainants as per their disclosure and thereafter it was sent to Op no.1/insurance company without any delay, therefore, the insurance company is liable to make the payment of loss of crop, if any; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant No.1 as Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of tendered affidavit of Sh.Mohit Bagla, Manager Legal as Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R1/1 to Annexure R1/3whereas learned counsel for the Op No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Raj Kumar Gautam, Branch Manager as Annexure R1 and documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R3 and thereafter evidence was closed.

5.                          We have heard oral final arguments from both sides and perused the case file minutely.

6.                          It has been argued by learned counsel for the complainants that the complainants had sown ‘cotton & paddy’ crops in their lands, which were duly insured, under PMFBY with OP No.1, but when the crops got damaged, no compensation on account of insured crop was given to them despite the fact that they have completed all the formalities with regard to compensation of damaged cotton and paddy crop.

7.                          On the other the Ops have resisted the claim of complainant on the ground that the complainant has not suffered any loss of crop as in the area where the land of the complainants situated, no natural calamities like hailstorm, heavy rain fall and snowfall has ever taken place. Learned counsel for the Ops further resisted the claim of the complainants on the ground that the complainants did not intimate the Ops qua the damage of crop as per the operational guidelines, therefore, the complainants are not entitled for any compensation.

8.                          The complainants have alleged that their crops of kharif, 2018 season was damaged and the concerned department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14800/- per hectare for paddy crop (Annexure C6) and Rs.18375/-  for cotton crop (Annexure C7) in village Bosti. 

9.                          Undisputedly, the insurance company had accepted the payment qua insurance premium of crop and did not make the claim when the insured crop had already been reportedly damaged, meaning thereby that OP no.1/insurance company had accepted the premium without any objection and now when the damage to the crop of complainants has been caused, then OP no.1/insurance company arbitrarily and illegally denying to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. So, the OP no.1/insurance company is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice. 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 crop of complainant for kharif 2018 season and OP no.2/bank is not found responsible in this regard.   

10.                        Perusal of the case file reveals that the cotton crop on the land of the complainant i.e. 0.9 hectare  got damaged and the concerned Agriculture Department in the report Annexure C7 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.18375/- per hectare and paddy crop on the land of complainant i.e. 0.9 hectare also got damaged and the concerned Agriculture Department in the report Annexure C6 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14800/- per hectare, therefore, it would be just and proper to give compensation to the complainants as assessed by the concerned agriculture department in its report for the insured crop only.

11.                        Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against OP No.1/insurance company with a direction as follows:

 (1)                       To pay an amount of Rs.16537/- as insurance claim amount on account of yield loss to the complainant for the damages of cotton crop of 2018, sown by them in 0.9 hectare and further to pay an amount of Rs.13320/- as insurance claim amount on account of yield loss to the complainant for damages of paddy crop of 2018 sown by them in 0.9 hectare of land.

(2)                        To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rs.Eleven Thousand) towards compensation for harassment and mental agony etc. suffered by the complainants as well as for litigation expenses.

                             The amount mentioned at Sr. No. (1) would carry simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the compliant till actual payment.  The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the entire amount mentioned at Sr. Nos. (1) & (2) above would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, no deficiency is found on the part of OP no. 2/bank, therefore, complaint against Op No.2/bank stands dismissed. 

12.                        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. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated:11.09.2023.

                                                                                                        

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