Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 585.
Instituted on : 14.11.2019
Decided on : 21.06.2021
Ram Kumar Punia age 54 years s/o Sh. Mehar Chand r/o Meham, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Unit No.401, 4th Floor, Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East Mumbai through its Manager.
- State of Haryana through Collector, Rohtak.
- Deputy Director of Agriculture & Farmers welfare Department, Haryana, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
MS.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Argued: Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for OP No. 1.
Sh.Ashish Tehlan, ADA for opposite party No.2 & 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant used to cultivate the agriculture land of one Sunil w/o Sh.Raghbir Singh r/o village Saman, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak. He had availed the insurance policy for his Rabi Crop under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare vide application receipt No.0402061800802613838 for Rabi 2018 in respect of 4.8 Hect. agricultural land and application receipt No.0402061800802622996 for Rabi 2018 in respect of 3.6 Hect.. The complainant has paid the insurance premium through his bank account to the tune of Rs.4788/- and 3951/- respectively on account of share of premium of farmer and sum insured was Rs.319200/- in lieu of application No. 0402061800802613838 and Rs.239400/- in respect of application No. 0402061800802622996. The complainant has sown the crop of wheat in his aforesaid land and the crop of the wheat of complainant was badly damaged/ruined due to inundation in the aforesaid total land i.e.8.4 Hect. The complainant lodged his complaint with respondents as the crop of the complainant was insured and covered under Pradhan Mantri Bima Yojna. The surveyor of the company alongwith Block Agriculture Officer, Meham inspected the site and assessed the loss as mentioned in survey report. The complainant is entitled to get compensation on account of loss suffered by him in the crop of Rabi. The value of damaged crop of the complainant is Rs.450000/- approximately but the respondent no.1 did not pay any amount of compensation to the complainant till date. The respondent no.1 has illegally withheld the amount of compensation and is not paying the amount of compensation. The complainant requested the opposite parties time and again to release the amount of compensation but any heed was not paid to his requests. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.450000/- on account of loss assessed by the competent authority alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 & 3 in their reply has submitted that complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ qua the respodnentno.2 & 3 as no service was provided by respondent no2 & 3 to the complainant. The complainant is insured with the respondent no.1 through bank hence if he has any grievance to respondent no.1, then the company is responsible to make the compensation to the complainant. On merits, it is submitted that the intimation of crop loss due to inundation was submitted by the complainant to respondent no.3. The survey was conducted by the survey team and report was sent to respondent no.1 for further necessary action. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be decided in view of the facts mentioned above.
3. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that in the present case, the complainant is a Non-Loanee Farmer paid premium of Rs.4788/- and Rs.3591/- to cover Wheat crop measuring area 4.8 Hc & 3.8 Hc Land in village Meham for sum of Rs.319200/- & Rs.239400/- through his bank Account under application no. No. 0402061800802613838 and No. 0402061800802622996. In the present case as per data of AY and TY provided by Government AY Yield of farmer concerned is 2302.492 and TY is 3897.54. Henceforth TY is higher than AY therefore shortfall is calculated to be 41%. In first application number, the claim pay-out amounting to Rs.130630/- and Rs.97973/- has been paid to complainant’s account through NEFT payments having unique UTR No. 016200353995739 on liquidation dated 16.01.2020 and in second application, the claim pay out amount to Rs.108859/- has been paid to complainant’s account through NEFT payments having unique UTR No. 016200353995596 on liquidation date 16.01.2020. Henceforth, it is to be concluded that since alleged insured has not suffered any loss with regard to his alleged agriculture land henceforth, answering respondent company is not liable to pay any claim with regards to present complaint. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on dated 27.07.2020. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/3 and closed his evidence on 21/01.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.R2/1 and closed his evidence on dated 31.08.2020.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present complaint, the complainant pleaded that he has suffered loss in his 8.4 Hect. of agricultural land. He sown wheat crops in his fields and due to ‘Inundation’ the complainant’s crops damaged and his crop was insured with the opposite parties. As per copy of application receipt No.0402061800802622996 Ex.C1 3.6 Hect. land and as per copy of application receipt No.0402061800802613838 Ex.C2, 4.8 Hect. of land of the complainant was insured under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana and he paid Rs.3591/- and Rs.4788/- respectively as premium amount and the sum insured is Rs.239400/- and Rs.319200/- respectively. Hence the total 8.4 Hect. of land of the complainant was insured under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. . Ex.C4 is the sowing certificate of agricultural land of complainant. Meaning thereby, the complainant’s crop of 4.8 hectare was insured through respondent no.1. We have also perused the document Ex.R1/1 placed on record by the respondent no.1 i.e. detail of Pradhan Mantri Fasal bima Yojana(PMFBY). In fact one another clause is mentioned in this policy which is 15.3.1 as per which, it is mentioned that : “Loss assessment and modified indemnity procedures in case of occurrence of localized perils, such as hailstorm, landslide, flood, and inundation shall be for a cluster of affected farms or affected village and the settlement of claim, if any, will be each insurer farmer covered under assessment. As per 15.3.2, “The District Administration will assist IA in assessing the extent of loss”. Meaning thereby the assessment regarding loss due to hailstorm, landslide, flood, and inundation has been covered by the department. We have also perused the report issued by the loss assessor Ex.C9/Ex.RW2/1, as per which the yield of the farmer was damaged due to inundation. Hence the loss is covered under clause 15.3.1 of the policy. As per copy of report of assessment of loss Ex.C7, the field of the complainant was inspected by the committee comprising of two members i.e. loss assessor of company and Block Agriculture officer in the presence of complainant and complainant suffered loss in his 2 hectare land due to inundation i.e. 75% in 3 acres, 50% in 2 acre. As per copy of report of assessment of loss Ex.R2/1 also, complainant suffered loss in 3.2 hectare land i.e. 80% in 8 acre due to inundation. Copy of Nakal Jamabandi Ex.C7 is also placed on record.
7. Hence from the documents placed on record, it is established that the complainant’s crop was damaged to the extent of 75% in 3 acres , 50% in 2 acres and 80% in 8 acres due to ‘Inundation’. On the other hand, as per the respondent insurance company i.e. opposite party No.1 has pleaded in his written statement that they have received premium amount of Rs.4788/- & Rs.3591/- to cover Wheat crop measuring area 4.8 Hc & 3.8 Hc Land in village Meham for sum assured of Rs.319200/- & Rs.239400/- through his bank Account under Application No.0402061800802613838 and application No. 0402061800802622996 for the Rabi 2018. The sum assured for one acre comes to Rs.26929/- for insured sum Rs.239400/- and Rs.26913/- for insured sum Rs.319200/-. As such, complainant is entitled for loss of 75% in 3 acres i.e. Rs.60590/- and 50% in 2 acre i.e. Rs.26929/- and 80% in 8 acres i.e. Rs.172250/- i.e. total Rs.259769/-. On the other hand, as per opposite party no.1 they have already paid an amount of Rs.228603/-(130630/- + Rs.97973/-) to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled for the remaining claim amount i.e. Rs.31166/-(Rs.259769/- less Rs.228603/-) from the opposite party No.1.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.31166/-(Rupees thirty one thousand one hundred and sixty six only) towards loss of crops alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.14.11.2019 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay interest @ 9% on the claim amount already paid by the opposite party No.1 i.e. Rs.228603/- from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 14.11.2019 till the date of payment i.e. 16.01.2020 to the complainant.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.06.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
