First Appeal No. 688 of Date of institution: Date of decision :

Transcription

1 PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DAKSHAN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. 688 of 2008 Date of institution: Date of decision : Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Jalandhar through its Divisional Manager. 2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Sangrur through its Divisional Manager. Both 1 & 2 through its authorized signatory Chief Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.109 to 111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh). Versus..OP-Appellants 1. Chamkaur Singh son of Gurcharan Singh resident of Dhuri, District Sangrur. Complainant-Respondent 2. State Bank of India, Branch Ladda through its Branch Manager. 3. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society, 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Chairman K.C.Bansal...OPs-Respondents First Appeal against the order dated passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur. Before:- Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:- For the appellants : Sh.Rahul Sharma, Advocate for Sh.V.A.Talwar, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh.R.S.Joshi, Advocate For respondent No.2&3 : None JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This is OP s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur

2 First Appeal No.688 of (in short the District Forum) vide which the OP was directed to pay to the complainant as under : - 1. a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of loss of the crop. 2. a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of mental pain agony and harassment, and; 3. a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. 2. The present complaint was filed by Chamkaur Singh alleging that he had got his Stevia crop insured from the OPappellants for a sum of Rs.3 lac for the period from to He had obtained a loan from the State Bank of India OP No.3 for the cultivation of Stevia crop which was to be purchased by OP No.4 Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society. The complainant spent Rs.3 lac on the Stevia cultivation; but on the night between 17 and , a thunder storm ruined the Stevia plantation and his crop was damaged, due to which, he suffered huge pecuniary loss. He informed the appellants who appointed a Surveyor to whom all the documents were furnished but ultimately the claim amount was not paid. He, therefore, filed the present complaint for a direction to pay Rs.3 lac along with 18% per annum and to pay Rs.1 lac on account of mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. 3. The complaint was opposed by the OP-appellants admitting that the Stevia crop was insured with them for Rs.3 lac and that an intimation was received about the damage to the crop, upon which, they appointed Engineer Madan Mohan Sharma for investigation who submitted his report dated alleging

3 First Appeal No.688 of that the loss to the crop was due to inherent snags and fault of the complainant. According to them, the claim was repudiated rightly and the present complaint be dismissed. 4. Nobody appeared for OPs No.3 and 4 (respondent No.2 and 3) and they were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. 5. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated accepted the complaint in terms stated above. The OPs have challenged the same through the present appeal. 6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. The OPs have admitted that the Stevia crop was insured with them and this fact also stands admitted and proved that it was damaged on the night of 17 and The contention of the complainant is that there was a thunder storm on that night which caused damage to the crop. He has submitted his own affidavit and also a news item Ex.C12 showing that there was wide spread rain, a hail storm and tempest which caused grief to the farmers. On the other hand, are the affidavits of Kuldip Raj, Divisional Manager Ex.R10 and Er. Madan Mohan Sharma Ex.R11 who did not mention anything about this fact. In their affidavits, they have mentioned that the loss to crop was not due to storm/rain or due to the operation of any peril. However, they

4 First Appeal No.688 of neither denied damage to the crop nor the storm, rain or tempest occurring on that night. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants has, however, referred to the report Ex.R4 of the Surveyor Er. Madan Mohan Sharma which was incorporated by OP No.1 and 2 in para 3 (d) of the written reply. The surveyor has reported that the loss was caused due to improper/inadequate compliance of recommended package of practices for this crop round the year. It was also observed by the OPs that the complainant-respondent lacked technical know how and did not follow the recommended package of practices. However, neither the Surveyor nor the OP-appellants produced any such package or practices required for the crop or technical know how which were not complied with by the complainant. It was also observed that the maize crop was found sown in the entire Stevia field and such type of inter cropping is not recommended for Stevia cultivation. He, however, did not produce any literature on this point that inter cropping is not recommended for the Stevia cultivation or that maize crop sown in the field was the cause of damage to the crop. It was also mentioned by the Surveyor and further by the OP-appellants that the Stevia was planted in the month of October, 2006 and its first harvesting was due in January, 2007 but harvesting was not done till April, In this respect also, no evidence or literature was adduced by the OP-appellants nor was referred to by the Surveyor as to when the first harvesting was recommended to be done and further there is no evidence to prove if the non harvesting of the crop was the cause of damage. In this manner, it appears the Surveyor coined his own excuses to deny the claim of the complainant without any evidence

5 First Appeal No.688 of or substance therein. One thing is certain that the damage to the crop was not disputed by the Surveyor nor has it been disputed by the OPs. The reason for damage mentioned by the OPs are not substantiated by any documents literature or evidence and, therefore, their contention was rightly rejected by the learned District Forum. 10. It is not disputed that one acre of Stevia crop was insured for Rs.3 lac with the OP-appellants. The said crop was damaged by hail storm. The learned District Forum in its wisdom granted a compensation of Rs.1.5 lacs which, in our opinion, is neither excessive nor unreasonable. The complainant has also been allowed Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is perfectly just and proper. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. The litigation costs are assessed at Rs.20,000/ The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to the complainant-respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. costs. Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER December 10, Paritosh (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER