State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maninderjit Kaur vs The Oriental Insurance Co. & Anr. on 6 December, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) First Appeal No.835 of 2022
Date of institution : 03.10.2022
Reserved On : 18.10.2023
Date of decision : 06.12.2023
Maninderjit Kaur W/o Rajpal Singh Gandhi S/o Charanjit Singh,
resident of L-5, Model Town, Banga, Tehsil Banga, District Shaheed
Bhagat Singh Nagar.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Manila Tower, Banga
Road, above HDFC Bank, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar,
through its Manager.
2. The Punjab National Bank (Corporate Agent), Dana Mandi,
Banga, District SBS Nagar, through its Manager.
....Respondents/OPs
2) First Appeal No.857 of 2022
Date of institution : 10.10.2022
Reserved On : 18.10.2023
Date of decision : 06.12.2023
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Manila Tower, Banga Road,
above HDFC Bank, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar, through its
Manager (Legal), Regional Office: SCO No.109-11, Sector 17-D,
Chandigarh.
....Appellant/OP No.1
Versus
1. Maninderjit Kaur W/o Rajpal Singh Gandhi S/o Charanjit Singh,
resident of L-5, Model Town, Banga, Tehsil Banga, District
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.
First Appeal No.835 of 2022 2
....Respondent/Complainant
2. The Punjab National Bank (Corporate Agent), Dana Mandi,
Banga, District SBS Nagar, through its Manager.
....Respondent/OP No.2
3) First Appeal No.836 of 2022
Date of institution : 03.10.2022
Reserved On : 18.10.2023
Date of decision : 06.12.2023
Maninderjit Kaur W/o Rajpal Singh Gandhi S/o Charanjit Singh,
resident of L-5, Model Town, Banga, Tehsil Banga, District Shaheed
Bhagat Singh Nagar.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Manila Tower, Banga
Road, above HDFC Bank, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar,
through its Manager.
2. The Punjab National Bank (Corporate Agent), Dana Mandi,
Banga, District SBS Nagar, through its Manager.
....Respondents/OPs
4) First Appeal No.858 of 2022
Date of institution : 10.10.2022
Reserved On : 18.10.2023
Date of decision : 06.12.2023
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Manila Tower, Banga Road,
above HDFC Bank, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar, through its
Manager (Legal), Regional Office: SCO No.109-11, Sector 17-D,
Chandigarh.
....Appellant/OP No.1
Versus
First Appeal No.835 of 2022 3
1. Maninderjit Kaur Gandhi W/o Rajpal Singh Gandhi S/o Charanjit
Singh, resident of L-5, Model Town, Banga, Tehsil Banga,
District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.
....Respondent/Complainant
2. The Punjab National Bank (Corporate Agent), Dana Mandi,
Banga, District SBS Nagar, through its Manager.
....Respondent/OP No.2
5) First Appeal No.838 of 2022
Date of institution : 03.10.2022
Reserved On : 18.10.2023
Date of decision : 06.12.2023
Amandeep Singh Gandhi S/o Charanjit Singh, resident of L-5, Model
Town, Banga, Tehsil Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Manila Tower, Banga
Road, above HDFC Bank, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar,
through its Manager.
2. The Punjab National Bank (Corporate Agent), Dana Mandi,
Banga, District SBS Nagar, through its Manager.
....Respondents/OPs
6) First Appeal No.859 of 2022
Date of institution : 10.10.2022
Reserved On : 18.10.2023
Date of decision : 06.12.2023
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Manila Tower, Banga Road,
above HDFC Bank, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar, through its
Manager (Legal), Regional Office: SCO No.109-11, Sector 17-D,
Chandigarh.
....Appellant/OP No.1
Versus
First Appeal No.835 of 2022 4
1. Amandeep Singh Gandhi S/o Charanjit Singh, resident of L-5,
Model Town, Banga, Tehsil Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Nagar.
....Respondent/Complainant
2. The Punjab National Bank (Corporate Agent), Dana Mandi,
Banga, District SBS Nagar, through its Manager.
....Respondent/OP No.2
7) First Appeal No.839 of 2022
Date of institution : 03.10.2022
Reserved On : 18.10.2023
Date of decision : 06.12.2023
GVS Tissue Culture LAB., through its Prop. Rajpal Singh Gandhi S/o
Charanjit Singh, resident of L-5, Model Town, Banga, Tehsil Banga,
District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Manila Tower, Banga
Road, above HDFC Bank, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar,
through its Manager.
2. The Punjab National Bank (Corporate Agent), Dana Mandi,
Banga, District SBS Nagar, through its Manager.
....Respondents/OPs
8) First Appeal No.860 of 2022
Date of institution : 10.10.2022
Reserved On : 18.10.2023
Date of decision : 06.12.2023
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Manila Tower, Banga Road,
above HDFC Bank, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar, through its
Manager (Legal), Regional Office: SCO No.109-11, Sector 17-D,
Chandigarh.
First Appeal No.835 of 2022 5
....Appellant/OP No.1
Versus
1. GVS Tissue Culture LAB., through its Prop. Rajpal Singh Gandhi
S/o Charanjit Singh, resident of L-5, Model Town, Banga, Tehsil
Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.
....Respondent/Complainant
2. The Punjab National Bank (Corporate Agent), Dana Mandi,
Banga, District SBS Nagar, through its Manager.
....Respondent/OP No.2
First Appeals under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
similar orders dated 22.07.2022 passed by
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present (F.A. No.835 of 2022):-
For the Appellant : Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. B.S. Tanuque, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None.
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT This order of ours shall dispose off total 8 First Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.835 of 2022, First Appeal No.857 of 2022 (Cross First Appeal No.835 of 2022 6 Appeals), First Appeal No.836 of 2022 and First Appeal No.858 of 2022 (Cross Appeals), First Appeal No.838 of 2022 and First Appeal No.859 of 2022 (Cross Appeals), First Appeal No.839 of 2022 and First Appeal No.860 of 2022 (Cross Appeals), as similar questions of law and facts are involved therein and the same have been filed against the similar orders dated 22.07.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (in short, "the District Commission"). However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.835 of 2022. First Appeal No.857 of 2022
2. Appellant/Complainant Maninderjit Kaur has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the District Commission, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby the Complaint filed by her had been partly allowed and the OPs were directed to pay an amount of ₹50,000/- as compensation for 'deficiency in service' in not informing the Complainant about her inability to get the poly house insured. They were further directed to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment and mental torture to the Complainant as well as to deposit an amount of ₹2,000/- in Legal Aid Account of the District Commission. The order was to be complied within a period of 45 days, First Appeal No.835 of 2022 7 failing which the interest at the rate of 6% per annum was payable on the awarded amount.
3. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Appellant/Complainant in the Complaint filed by her before the District Commission are that she had set up a Green House and Shade Net House/Poly House at her Farm House situated in Village Pojewal, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar under the guidelines of 'National Horticulture Mission of Government of India', which was duly sanctioned by National Horticulture Board, Punjab. For the said purpose, the Complainant had availed the loan from OP No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank, being the Corporate Agent of OP No.1- Insurance Company. The premium amount was to be debited by OP No.1 from the Loan Account and the entire project of the Complainant was insured vide Policy bearing No.235402/11/2021/276, which was valid w.e.f. 10.02.2021 to 09.02.2022. Under the said Policy, the risk of entire Shade Net House including all equipments and stock was covered to the tune of ₹28 lac. Said Policy was renewed on year to year basis and the premium was paid regularly by the Complainant. The Complainant had never applied for any claim during the last years. It was further mentioned that the Shade Net House/Poly House was First Appeal No.835 of 2022 8 damaged by the thunder storm in the intervening night of 27/28.07.2021. Intimation of damage was given to OP No.1 on 29.07.2021 but OP No.1 had refused to pay any claim vide letter dated 16.12.2021 on the ground that the loss so caused was not falling within the scope of the Policy, as the Policy was covering only the stock and not the poly house.
5. Stating to be a case of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the OPs, the Complaint was filed with the prayer for issuance of directions to the OPs to pay an amount of ₹4,20,000/- towards the loss suffered by the Complainant as well as ₹50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental tension, pain and agony to the Complainant and ₹25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
6. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the OPs had appeared through counsel before the District Commission.
7. OP No.1 filed written reply, wherein certain preliminary objections were raised by stating therein that the Complainant had not approached the District Commission with clean hands and the claim was rightly repudiated, as the Insurance was only qua to stock and not the Shade Net House/Poly House. The other averments as made in the Complaint were denied.
8. OP No.2 had filed separate written reply, wherein certain preliminary objections were raised by stating therein that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and OP No.2. The First Appeal No.835 of 2022 9 Insurance Contract was between the Complainant and OP No.1 only, as the loan was advanced by OP No.2 in favour of the Complainant. The other averments as made in the Complaint were denied.
9. By considering the contents of the Complaint and reply thereof filed by the OPs and on hearing the oral arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, the Complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.07.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-16 is reproduced as under:
"16. In view of the above stated position, we partly allow the Complaint and direct the opposite party OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service in not informing the Complainant about his/her inability to get the poly house insured and Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental torture. In addition, the opposite parties are directed to deposit Rs.2,000/- in legal aid account of this Commission. The amount of compensation awarded hereby, if not paid within 45 days from filing of this Complaint, shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum."
10. Said order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the District Commission has been challenged not only by the Complainant by way of filing First Appeal No.835 of 2022 but also by OP No.1 by way of filing the First Appeal No.857 of 2022 by raising a number of arguments.
11. There was a delay of 23 days in filing of the Appeal. Misc. Application No.1292 of 2022 was filed for condonation of delay, which was supported by an affidavit. Said application was allowed vide order dated 21.10.2022 and the delay in filing of the Appeal was condoned First Appeal No.835 of 2022 10 but subject to cost of ₹1,150/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within a period of 20 days.
12. Mr. Parminder Singh, learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant has submitted that the loan was availed for the construction of green house/Shade Net House/poly house and the Insurance premium was also paid on the assurance given by the Insurance Company to cover the entire project under the Policy. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per Clause-5 of the Hypothecation Agreement, the assets so created out of the loan amount was to be insured against any loss or damage by fire or any other risk. The loan was availed only for construction of the poly house/net house. Learned counsel has also submitted that the District Commission has not considered the material fact that the Insurance Company had issued the Policy for the sum assured of ₹30 lac without checking the quantity of the stock, which was available at the site. At the time of issuance of the Policy, nothing was there in the stock and any crop whatsoever was to be subsequently sown. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Insurance Company had insured the entire project, which included the cultivation of the Capsicum crop under the poly house and not merely the Capsicum crop. Learned counsel has also submitted that the outcome of the crop like Capsicum cannot be of an amount of ₹30 lac, as the price of the capsicum of such size can only in thousands and not even in lakhs. Learned First Appeal No.835 of 2022 11 counsel has further submitted that in the Policy against the column of 'Risk Description', only the 'Polyester Film Manufacturing/BOPP Film Manufacturing' is mentioned and not any crop. At the end, learned counsel has submitted that the amount as awarded by the District Commission is not adequate keeping in view the claim and the loss caused to the poly house. As such, the compensation is to be enhanced. Leaned counsel has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
i) Canara Bank v. Leatheroid Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No.4645 of 2019 decided on 20.05.2020 (SC); and
ii) Allahabad Bank v. J.D.S. Electronic Company (2007) CPJ 270 (NC).
13. Mr. B.S. Taunque, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/OP No.1 (Appellant in F.A. No.857 of 2022) has submitted that the District Commission has not properly appreciated the facts and the evidence as available on record as well as the law position while partly allowing the Complaint. The terms and conditions of the Policy were also not taken into consideration. The Complainant herself was well aware about the terms and conditions of the Policy and also the material fact that only the stock was covered under the Insurance Policy and the Shade Net House was not insured. OP No.1 has wrongly been held liable, as the Complainant herself was negligent to some extent as the amount of premium was debited from her loan account. The claim was rightly repudiated, as the Policy was covering only the stock and not the poly house and, as such, the Insurance First Appeal No.835 of 2022 12 Company was not liable in any manner. Even the surveyor had stated/observed that the loss occurred to the poly house was not falling within the scope of the Policy, as the Policy coverage was only for stock and not the poly house. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Complainant was in possession of the Policy and she had not made any effort to get the Policy rectified. Even OP No.2- Bank was deficient, as the Complainant not informed about the coverage of the risk under the Policy. The communication received from the Insurance Company was never informed/intimated by the Bank to the Complainant. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
i) M/s BHS Industries v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation & Anr. 2015 (4) CLT 225 (SC);
ii) Sri Durga Khandsari v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. I (2020) CPJ 354 (NC); and
iii) Sushila Devi v. LIC of India I (2016) CPJ 351 (NC).
14. We have heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for the Appellant/OP No.1 and Respondent/Complainant and none had appeared on behalf of OP No.2 at the time of arguments.
15. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission and all other relevant documents available on the file.
16. Facts regarding filing of the Complaint by the Complainant before the District Commission, reply thereto filed by the OPs, partly First Appeal No.835 of 2022 13 allowing of said Complaint and thereafter filing of the present Appeals by OP No.1 and the Complainant before this Commission are not in dispute.
17. Admittedly, the Complainant had set up a Shade Net House/poly house in her farm house. For setting up said poly house, the Complainant had obtained a loan of ₹28 lac from OP No.2-Bank, as per the Hypothecation Agreement Annexure A-3. It was mentioned in the said agreement that loan was advanced/availed for the purpose of 'Capsicum Plant Cultivation in Net House'. OP No.2- Bank had also admitted in its reply that the loan was sanctioned for construction of poly house. Clause-5 of the Hypothecation Agreement is relevant in the present context, which is reproduced as under:
"5. That the borrower(s) shall at all times keep such items of security as are of Insurance nature, insured against loss or damage by fire and other risks, as may be required by the Banka shall deliver to the Bank all such policies. It shall be also lawful for but not obligatory upon the bank to insure by debit to the borrower(s) account(s) in respect of the security as are of insurable nature. The proceeds of such Insurance shall at the option of the bank either be applied towards replacement of the security or towards the satisfaction of the bank's dues.
The bank shall have the absolute right to adjust, settle, compromise or refer to arbitration any dispute in connection with or arising out of any Policy of the Insurance and every act of the Bank in this behalf shall be valid and binding on the borrower but shall not impair the Bank's right to recover its dues from the Borrower(s).
.........................................................................................."
18. Acting upon Clause-5 of the Hypothecation Agreement, OP No.2-Bank had facilitated for issuance of the Insurance Policy for the entire project of the Complainant from OP No.1-Insurance Policy. First Appeal No.835 of 2022 14 Accordingly, the 'Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy Schedule' Annexure A-2 was issued by OP No.1 for the sum assured of ₹30 lac, which was for the period w.e.f.10.02.2021 to 09.02.2022. The name of insured was mentioned in the said Policy as 'PNB, Dana Mandi, Banga A/C (GSTIN)' and the address of the Complainant was also mentioned thereunder.
19. The Shade Net House of the Complainant was badly damaged due to thunderstorm on 28.07.2021. Intimation of said incident was given to the OPs and the surveyor was appointed, who visited the site. However, the claim of the Complainant was declined vide letter dated 16.12.2021 on the following ground:
"The surveyor has recommended that the loss does not fall within the scope of the Policy as the Policy coverage is for stock and loss is reported to polyhouse therefore the claim is being filed as 'No Claim'."
20. The issue for determination in the present Appeals is as to whether the loss occurred to the Shade Net House/Poly House of the Complainant is covered under the Policy in dispute or not?
21. It is relevant to mention here that the Insurance Company had appointed M/s Suresh Vashisht & Co. as Surveyor and Loss Assessor to visit the site and to assess the loss. The surveyor had conducted the survey and had submitted the 'Independent Final Survey Report' (Ex.OP-1/3), wherein under the column 'Survey Regarding', it was specifically mentioned as under:
"Loss to sheets & structure of Polyhouse"First Appeal No.835 of 2022 15
22. Under the column 'Occupancy as per Policy', it was mentioned as under:
"Green House or Poly House but stock is covered as per Policy."
23. The surveyor had also assessed the value of the new poly house as ₹27,60,000/-. Therefore, as per the survey report, the loss was reported to the sheets and structure of the poly house and occupancy at the site of loss was also shown as the Green House or Poly House. Further, in the Insurance Policy, the column of 'Nature of Stock' was left blank but the 'Risk Description' was given as under:
"Polyester Film Manufacturing/BOPP Film Manufacturing"
24. OP No.1-Insurance has laid much emphasis upon the fact that only the 'Stock' was insured under the Policy for the sum assured of ₹30 lac and not the poly house. The Complainant had also filed the rejoinder to the reply filed by the OPs, wherein she had specifically mentioned that neither any stock was stored in the poly house nor the poly house was meant for storing any stock. The Poly House was constructed to grow the crop under it by maintaining the required temperature. OP No.1 has neither produced on record the Proposal Form nor explained as to what was the stock insured under the said Policy. Non-mentioning of the description of the stock in the Policy was due to the fault of OP No.2-Bank, being the facilitator to get the Policy issued but the Complainant could not be made to suffer. First Appeal No.835 of 2022 16
25. Accordingly, keeping in view the 'Risk Description' as mentioned in the Policy as well as Hypothecation Agreement and the contents of the survey report, it can be inferred that the loss occurred to the Shade Net House/Poly House of the Complainant was covered under the Policy.
26. Now, the quantum of loss as suffered by the Complainant due to damage to the poly house due to thunderstorm on 28.07.2021 is required to be determined.
27. The Complainant has produced on record the copy of estimate dated 09.08.2021 (Ex.C-3) submitted by Inderjeet Singh Enterprises, wherein the total repair cost of the damaged poly house has been mentioned as ₹4,20,000/-. However, in the Survey Report (Ex.OP-1/3), it has been mentioned that the surveyor had contacted another repairer namely Kissan Agro Tech., who prepared the estimate after physical inspection and negotiation with the surveyor. On the basis of estimate submitted by the said repairer, the gross loss was assessed by the surveyor as ₹2,36,840/-. After applying the depreciation @ 70% and also on deducting the salvage to the tune of ₹3,052/-, the net off salvage value was assessed as ₹68,000/-. Thereafter, by applying the Excess Clause @ 5% of the claim amount or ₹10,000/- for each and every claim, the net loss was assessed by the surveyor as ₹58,000/-. However, it is relevant to mention that the surveyor had not annexed the estimate submitted by said Kissan Agro First Appeal No.835 of 2022 17 Tech. along with the survey report. In absence of such estimate and by relying upon the surveyor, no reliance can be made on the survey report or the assessment made by the surveyor therein. Even the assessment made by the surveyor in the survey report is not proper. Accordingly, the estimate as produced by the Complainant is to be relied upon.
28. The District Commission has awarded an amount of ₹50,000/- for 'deficiency in service' committed by the OPs as well as ₹5,000/- as compensation for causing mental torture and harassment and has also directed the OPs to deposit an amount of ₹2,000/- in the Legal Aid Account of the District Commission.
29. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion as well as the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, the compensation is required to be enhanced and the Complainant is held entitled for an amount of ₹4,20,000/- as per above said estimate along with interest towards loss occurred to her poly house. She is also entitled for compensation for causing mental agony and harassment by the OPs as well as litigation expenses. OP No.2-Bank had facilitated to get the Policy as per Clause-5 of the Hypothecation Agreement. OP No.2 was at fault in not mentioning the nature of stock as reflected in the Policy. Therefore, OP No.2 is also liable to pay the compensation and litigation expenses along with OP No.1. The order passed by the District Commission is required to be modified. The judgments relied First Appeal No.835 of 2022 18 upon by learned counsel for OP No.1 are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
30. Accordingly, the Appeal i.e. First Appeal No.835 of 2022 filed by the Complainant is allowed and First Appeal No.857 of 2022 filed by OP No.1 is dismissed. The impugned order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the District Commission is modified accordingly and the following directions are issued:
i) OP No.1-Insurane Company is directed to pay an amount of ₹4,20,000/- towards the loss occurred to the poly house of the Complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 16.12.2021 till its realization;
ii) OPs No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay the compensation of ₹25,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant; and
iii) OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of ₹25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the Complainant.
First Appeal No.836 of 2022 & First Appeal No.858 of 2022 (Cross Appeals)
31. The complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide order dated 22.07.2022. Said order has been challenged not only by the Complainant by way of filing First Appeal No.836 of 2022 but also by OP No.1 by way of filing the First Appeal No.858 of 2022 by raising a number of arguments.
First Appeal No.835 of 2022 19
32. In said Appeals, the Complainant had set up a Green House/Shade Net House/Poly House at her Farm House situated in Village Pojewal, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar under the guidelines of 'National Horticulture Mission of Government of India', which was duly sanctioned by National Horticulture Board, Punjab. For the said purpose, the Complainant had availed the loan of ₹61 lac from OP No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank, being the Corporate Agent of OP No.1-Insurance Company. The premium amount was to be debited by OP No.1 from the Loan Account and the entire project of the Complainant was insured vide Policy bearing No.235402/ 11/2021/278, which was valid w.e.f. 10.02.2021 to 09.02.2022. Under the said Policy, the risk of entire Shade Net House including all equipments and stock was covered to the tune of ₹60 lac. It was further mentioned that the Shade Net House/Poly House was damaged by the thunder storm on 28.07.2021. Intimation of damage was given to OP No.1 on 29.07.2021 but OP No.1 had refused to pay any claim vide letter dated 16.12.2021 on the ground that the loss so caused was not falling within the scope of the Policy, as the Policy was covering only the stock and not the poly house. The Complaint was filed with the prayer for issuance of directions to the OPs to pay an amount of ₹9,20,000/- towards the loss suffered by the Complainant as well as ₹50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental First Appeal No.835 of 2022 20 tension, pain and agony to the Complainant and ₹25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
33. Upon issuance of notice of the Complaint, the OPs had appeared and filed their separate replies on the similar grounds as mentioned in First Appeal No.835 of 2022.
34. The Complaint filed by the Complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.07.2022 and the OPs were directed to pay an amount of ₹50,000/- as compensation for 'deficiency in service' in not informing the Complainant about her inability to get the poly house insured. They were further directed to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment and mental torture to the Complainant as well as to deposit an amount of ₹2,000/- in Legal Aid Account of the District Commission. The order was to be complied within a period of 45 days, failing which the interest at the rate of 6% per annum was payable on the awarded amount.
35. In the said case also, OP No.2-Bank had got issued the Insurance Policy (Annexure A-2) for the sum insured of ₹60 lac for covering the entire Shade Net House including all equipments and stock of the Complainant. Said Policy was valid for the period w.e.f. 10.02.2021 to 09.02.2022. Under the column 'Risk Description', 'Polyester Film Manufacturing/BOPP Film Manufacturing' was mentioned.
First Appeal No.835 of 2022 21
36. In the said case also, the Complainant had produced the copy of estimate dated 09.08.2021 (Ex.C-3) given by Inderjeet Singh Enterprises, wherein the total repair cost of the damaged poly house was mentioned as ₹9,20,000/-. Similar type of survey report was produced in this case also, wherein the net loss was assessed by the surveyor as ₹58,000/- but the estimate of repairer as relied upon by the surveyor was not annexed with the survey report. Therefore, the survey report produced by the OPs cannot be relied upon.
37. In view of the detailed reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.835 of 2022, First Appeal No.836 of 2022 filed by the Complainant is allowed and First Appeal No.858 of 2022 filed by OP No.1-Insurance Company is dismissed. The impugned order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the District Commission is modified accordingly and the following directions are issued:
i) OP No.1-Insurane Company is directed to pay an amount of ₹9,20,000/- towards the loss occurred to the poly house of the Complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 16.12.2021 till its realization;
ii) OPs No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a compensation of ₹25,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant; and
iii) OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of ₹25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the Complainant. First Appeal No.835 of 2022 22
First Appeal No.838 of 2022 & First Appeal No.859 of 2022 (Cross Appeals)
38. The complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide order dated 22.07.2022. Said order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the District Commission has been challenged not only by the Complainant by way of filing First Appeal No.838 of 2022 but also by OP No.1 by way of filing the First Appeal No.859 of 2022 by raising a number of arguments.
39. In said Appeals, the Complainant had set up a Green House and Shade Net House/Poly House at his Farm House situated in Village Pojewal, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar under the guidelines of 'National Horticulture Mission of Government of India', which was duly sanctioned by National Horticulture Board, Punjab. For the said purpose, the Complainant had availed the loan of ₹28 lac from OP No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank, being the Corporate Agent of OP No.1-Insurance Company. The premium amount was to be debited by OP No.1 from the Loan Account and the entire project of the Complainant was insured vide Policy bearing No.235402/ 48/2022/114, which was valid w.e.f. 23.04.2021 to 22.04.2022. Under the said Policy, the risk of entire Shade Net House including all equipments and stock was covered to the tune of ₹28 lac. It was further mentioned that the Shade Net House/Poly House was damaged by the thunder storm 28.07.2021. Intimation of damage was given to OP No.1 on 29.07.2021 but OP No.1 had refused to pay any First Appeal No.835 of 2022 23 claim vide letter dated 16.12.2021 on the ground that the loss so caused was not falling within the scope of the Policy, as the Policy was covering only the stock and not the poly house. The Complaint was filed with the prayer for issuance of directions to the OPs to pay an amount of ₹4,20,000/- towards the loss suffered by the Complainant as well as ₹50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental tension, pain and agony to the Complainant and ₹25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
40. Upon issuance of notice of the Complaint, the OPs had appeared and filed their separate replies on the similar grounds as mentioned in First Appeal No.835 of 2022.
41. The Complaint filed by the Complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.07.2022 and the OPs were directed to pay an amount of ₹50,000/- as compensation for 'deficiency in service' in not informing the Complainant about his inability to get the poly house insured. They were further directed to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment and mental torture to the Complainant as well as to deposit an amount of ₹2,000/- in Legal Aid Account of the District Commission. The order was to be complied within a period of 45 days, failing which the interest at the rate of 6% per annum was payable on the awarded amount.
First Appeal No.835 of 2022 24
42. In the said case also, OP No.2-Bank had got issued the Insurance Policy for the sum insured of ₹28 lac for covering the entire Shade Net House including all equipments and stock of the Complainant. Said Policy was valid for the period w.e.f. 23.04.2021 to 22.04.2022. Under the column 'SMI Description', 'On stock Hyp. With Bank' was mentioned.
43. In the said case also, the Complainant had produced a copy of the estimate dated 09.08.2021 (Ex.C-3) given by Inderjeet Singh Enterprises, wherein the total repair cost of the damaged poly house is mentioned as ₹4,20,000/-. Similar type of survey report was produced in this case also, wherein the net loss was assessed by the surveyor as ₹1,39,501/- but the estimate of repairer as relied upon by the surveyor was not annexed with the survey report. Therefore, the survey report so produced by the OPs cannot be relied upon.
44. In view of the detailed reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.835 of 2022, First Appeal No.838 of 2022 filed by the Complainant is allowed and First Appeal No.859 of 2022 filed by OP No.1-Insurance Company is dismissed. The impugned order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the District Commission is modified accordingly and the following directions are issued:
i) OP No.1-Insurane Company is directed to pay an amount of ₹4,20,000/- towards the loss so occurred to the poly house of the First Appeal No.835 of 2022 25 Complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 16.12.2021 till its realization;
ii) OPs No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay the compensation of ₹25,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant; and
iii) OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of ₹25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the Complainant.
First Appeal No.839 of 2022 & First Appeal No.860 of 2022 (Cross Appeals)
45. The complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide order dated 22.07.2022. Said order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the District Commission has been challenged not only by the Complainant by way of filing First Appeal No.839 of 2022 but also by OP No.1 by way of filing the First Appeal No.860 of 2022 by raising a number of arguments.
46. In said Appeals, the Complainant had set up a Plant Tissue Culture Lab. at his Farm House situated in Village Pojewal, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar in the year 2013 under the guidelines of 'National Horticulture Mission of Government of India', which was duly sanctioned by National Horticulture Board, Punjab. For the said purpose, the Complainant had availed the loan of ₹85 lac from OP No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank, being the Corporate Agent of OP No.1-Insurance Company. The premium amount was to be debited by OP No.1 from the Loan Account and the entire project of the First Appeal No.835 of 2022 26 Complainant was insured vide Policy bearing No.235402/11/2021/279, which was valid w.e.f. 10.02.2021 to 09.02.2022. Under the said Policy, the risk of entire Green House including all equipments and stock was covered to the tune of ₹28 lac. It was further mentioned that the Shade Net House/Poly House was damaged by the thunder storm on 28.07.2021. Intimation of damage was given to OP No.1 on 29.07.2021 but OP No.1 had refused to pay any claim vide letter dated 16.12.2021 on the ground that the loss so caused was not falling within the scope of the Policy, as the Policy was covering only the stock and not the poly house. The Complaint was filed with the prayer for issuance of directions to the OPs to pay an amount of ₹1,15,000/- towards the loss suffered by the Complainant as well as ₹50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental tension, pain and agony to the Complainant and ₹25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
47. Upon issuance of notice of the Complaint, the OPs had appeared and filed their separate replies on the similar grounds as mentioned in First Appeal No.835 of 2022.
48. The Complaint filed by the Complainant was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.07.2022 and the OPs were directed to pay an amount of ₹50,000/- as compensation for 'deficiency in service' in not informing the Complainant about his inability to get the poly house insured. They were further directed to pay an amount of First Appeal No.835 of 2022 27 ₹5,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment and mental torture to the Complainant as well as to deposit an amount of ₹2,000/- in Legal Aid Account of the District Commission. The order was to be complied within a period of 45 days, failing which the interest at the rate of 6% per annum was payable on the awarded amount.
49. In the said case also, OP No.2-Bank had got issued the Insurance Policy (Annexure A-2) for the sum insured of ₹28 lac for covering the entire Green House including all equipments and stock of the Complainant. Said Policy was valid for the period w.e.f. 10.02.2021 to 09.02.2022. Under the column 'Risk Description', 'Polyester Film Manufacturing/BOPP Film Manufacturing' was mentioned. Another Policy i.e. 'Shop Keepers Insurance Policy Schedule' has been produced along with the Appeal, which was valid for the period w.e.f. 23.04.2021 to 22.04.2022. Under the said Policy, the stock in trade and furniture and fixtures were insured for an amount of ₹3,20,000/-.
50. In the said case also, the Complainant had produced the copy of estimate dated 09.08.2021 (Ex.C-3) given by Inderjeet Singh Enterprises, wherein the total repair cost of the damaged poly house is mentioned as ₹1,15,000/-. Similar type of survey report was produced in this case also, wherein the net loss was assessed by the surveyor as ₹1,10,000/- but the estimate of repairer as relied upon by the First Appeal No.835 of 2022 28 surveyor was not annexed with the survey report. Therefore, the survey report so produced by the OPs cannot be relied upon.
51. In view of the detailed reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.835 of 2022, First Appeal No.839 of 2022 filed by the Complainant is allowed and First Appeal No.860 of 2022 filed by OP No.1-Insurance Company is dismissed. The impugned order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the District Commission is modified accordingly and the following directions are issued:
i) OP No.1-Insurane Company is directed to pay an amount of ₹1,15,000/- towards the loss occurred to the green house of the Complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 16.12.2021 till its realization;
ii) OPs No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay the compensation of ₹25,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant; and
iii) OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of ₹25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the Complainant.
52. The compliance of the orders passed in the Appeals shall be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
53. Since the main cases have been disposed of, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
First Appeal No.835 of 2022 29
54. The amount(s) deposited by the Appellant(s) in First Appeal No.857 of 2022, First Appeal No.858 of 2022, First Appeal No.859 of 2022 and First Appeal No.860 of 2022 at the time of filing thereof or in connection with grant of stay as per order(s) passed by this Commission, if any, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith separately in each Appeal. The Complainant(s) may approach the District Commission for the release of the said amount and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
55. The Appeals could not be decided and pronounced within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER December 6, 2023.
(Gurmeet S)