Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Manjit Singh on 16 September, 2015

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Manjit Singh on 16 September, 2015

                                     FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
   PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                   First Appeal No.1741 of 2011
                                   Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.
                                   Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office
No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized
Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.
                                 .....Appellant/opposite party no.1

                              Versus

1.   Manjit Singh son of Mahinder Singh, Village Bimbar, PO-Majhi,
     Tehsil and District Sangrur.
                                    .....Respondent/complainant
2.   Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society
     through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur
     now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.
                        .....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2

                           First appeal against order dated
                           22.06.2011 passed by the District
                           Consumer     Disputes   Redressal
                           Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member.

Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None. ..............................................

2) First Appeal No.1742 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision : 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 2 Versus

1. Piara Singh son of Pritam Singh, Village Bhalwan, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

3) First Appeal No.1743 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Jeet Singh son of Sohna Singh, VPO Bhalwan, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 3 Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

4) First Appeal No.1744 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Karamjet Singh son of Bhola Singh, VPO Bhalwan, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 4

5) First Appeal No.1745 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Jagtar Singh S/o Gurjant Singh, VPO Bhalwan, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

6) First Appeal No.1746 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Chamkaur Singh S/o Gurcharan Singh, Village Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 5

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

7) First Appeal No.1747 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Pritam Singh S/o Bachan Singh, Village Kheri, Tehsil &District Sangrur.

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member. First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 6

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

8) First Appeal No.1748 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Balwinder Singh S/o Lal Singh, Village Kalabula, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 7

9) First Appeal No.1749 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Tek Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh, R/o Talam Patti, Bhalwan, P.O. Bhalwan, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

10) First Appeal No.1750 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 8

1. Paramjeet Singh S/o Mukhtiar Singh, R/o Village Mahan Nand Patti, Bhalwan, P.O. Bhalwan, Tehsil & District Sangrur (Pb.).

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

11) First Appeal No.1751 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Gursewak Singh S/o Mehan Singh, R/o VPO Gujjran, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur (Pb.).

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 9 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

12) First Appeal No.1752 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Mohan Singh S/o Jaggar Singh, R/o Village Balian, Tehsil & District Sangrur.

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 10 Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

13) First Appeal No.1753 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Jagpal Singh S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh, R/o Patti Butuha, Village Longowal, Tehsil & District Sangrur (Pb.).

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 11

14) First Appeal No.1754 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Harjit Singh Bhullar S/o Hajara Singh, R/o Village Dhaula, Tehsil Tappa & District Barnala (Pb.).

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

15) First Appeal No.1755 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 12

1. Mandeep Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o VPO Gurdaspura, Tehsil & District Barnala (Pb.).

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

16) First Appeal No.1756 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Makhan Singh S/o Ram Singh, R/o Village Dhaula, Tehsil Tappa & District Barnala (Pb.).

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 13 Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

17) First Appeal No.1757 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Harvinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurmail Singh, R/o Village Dhaula, Tehsil Tappa, District Barnala (Pb.).

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 14 Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

18) First Appeal No.1758 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Gurpreet Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o Village Gujjran, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur (Pb.).

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

19) First Appeal No.1759 of 2011 First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 15 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Mukand Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh, R/o Village Bhindran, Tehsil & District Sangrur (Pb.).

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

20) First Appeal No.1760 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Gurvinder Singh S/o Sh. Sukhpal Singh, R/o Village Issi, PO Meemsa, Tehsil Dhuri District Sangrur (Pb.).

First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 16

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

21) First Appeal No.1761 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Kulwant Singh S/o Sh. Jagroop Singh, R/o Village Badrukahan, Tehsil & District Sangrur (Pb.).

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 17 Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

..............................................

AND

22) First Appeal No.1762 of 2011 Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory, Ms. Gurprit, Manager Legal.

.....Appellant/opposite party no.1 Versus

1. Paramjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Manjit Singh, R/o VPO Gujjran, Tehsil Sunam District Sangrur (Pb.).

.....Respondent/complainant

2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur now at Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.

.....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 First appeal against order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri H.S. Guram, Member. Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate.

First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 18

For respondent no.1 : Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate. For respondent no.2 : None.

.............................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above referred connected first appeals, because they have arisen out of the same order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the 'District Forum') dated 22.06.2011 and, thus, can be disposed of together.

2. The above referred first appeals have been preferred by the appellant of above referred appeals (OP no.1 in the complaints) against respondent no.1 herein (the complainant in the complaints) and respondent no.2 of the appeals (the opposite party no.2 in the complaints), assailing order of District Forum dated 22.06.2011, vide which, the complaints of the complainants were partly accepted by awarding the insurance claim of their crops alongwith interest @9% per annum to them, as detailed in the orders. The order shall be pronounced by us in main first appeal no.1741 of 2013 titled as "ICICI Lombard G.I.C. Vs. Manjit Singh & another".

First appeal no.1741 of 2011

3. Complainant Manjit Singh instituted the complaint no.768 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15th July, 2009 with OPs by paying premium of Rs.4420/- for assured amount of Rs.40,000/-. It was First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 19 further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificate number 375351, dated 11.07.2009 to the complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting the insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.40,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

4. Upon notice, OP no.1 filed its separate written statement and contested the complaint of the complainant on the averments that complainant is not the consumer of it. The insurance certificate is alleged to be outcome of fraud, being a fabricated document. It was further pleaded that there was no payment of premium of the said cover note by the complainant and hence there is violation of Section 64-VB of Insurance Act. The complainant filed the present complaint in connivance with OP no.2, who played fraud with OP no.1 over this matter. The complex facts are involved in this case, which cannot be adjudicated in the summary manner by Consumer Forum. OP no.1 denied the factum of insurance of crop of the complainant by it under Weather Insurance Policy. It was further First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 20 averred that complainant never approached OP no.1 regarding loss of his crop. OP no.1, thus, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. OP no.2 filed its separate written reply and averred that OP no.2 was only a non credit franchise of OP no.1, being an NGO group. If any claim has to be paid by OP no.1, then OP no.2 is not liable for it. It was admitted by OP no.2 that it insured the crop of complainant on behalf of OP no.1 against premium. It was further pleaded that complainant approached OP no.2 and it forwarded all the requests of the complainant to OP no.1 for settlement of insurance claim of the complainant. Any deficiency in service on the part of OP no.2 was vehemently denied by it. OP no.2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

6. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1742 of 2011

7. Complainant Piara Singh instituted the complaint no.765 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 21 the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.1768/- for assured amount of Rs.16,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificate number 375354, dated 11.07.2009 to complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.16,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation

8. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

9. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 22 arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1743 of 2011

10. Complainant Jeet Singh instituted the complaint no.766 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.2210/- for assured amount of Rs.20,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificate number 375355, dated 11.07.2009 to complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.20,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

11. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 23 no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

12. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1744 of 2011

13. Complainant Karamjeet Singh instituted the complaint no.767 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying premium of Rs.4420/- for the assured amount of Rs.40,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificate number 375356, dated 11.07.2009 to complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 24 through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.40,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

14. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

15. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1745 of 2011

16. Complainant Jagtar Singh instituted the complaint no.778 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 25 the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.3536/- for the assured amount of Rs.32,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificate number 375361, dated 11.07.2009 to complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.32,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

17. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

18. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 26 arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1746 of 2011

19. Complainant Chamkaur Singh instituted the complaint no.779 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.2210/- for the assured amount of Rs.20,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for the compensation of claim amount of Rs.20,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

20. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 27 the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

21. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1747 of 2011

22. Complainant Pritam Singh instituted the complaint no.780 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.5304/- for the assured amount of Rs.48,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificate number 375235, dated 11.07.2009 to complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 28 complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.48,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

23. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

24. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1748 of 2011

25. Complainant Balwinder Singh instituted the complaint no.781 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 29 his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.4420/- for the assured amount of Rs.40,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificate number 375353, dated 11.07.2009 to complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.40,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

26. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

27. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 30 complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1749 of 2011

28. Complainant Tek Singh instituted the complaint no.782 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.8840/- for the assured amount of Rs.80,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificate number 375358, dated 11.07.2009 to complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.80,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

29. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 31 the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

30. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1750 of 2011

31. Complainant Paramjeet Singh instituted the complaint no.801 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.17,680/- for the assured amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificates number 375357 (Rs.40,000/-), 375359 (Rs.40,000/-) and 375360 (Rs.80,000/-) dated 11.07.2009 to the complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 32 submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.1,60,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

32. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

33. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1751 of 2011

34. Complainant Gursewak Singh instituted the complaint no.802 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 33 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.22,100/- for the assured amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificates number 375366 (Rs.80,000/-), 375367 (Rs.80,000/-) and 375368 (Rs.40,000/-) dated 11.07.2009 to the complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

35. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

36. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 34 evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1752 of 2011

37. Complainant Mohan Singh instituted the complaint no.803 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.22,100/- for the assured amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificates number 375369 (Rs.80,000/-), 375370 (Rs.80,000/-) and 375371 (Rs.40,000/-) dated 11.07.2009 to the complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 35 compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

38. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

39. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1753 of 2011

40. Complainant Jagpal Singh instituted the complaint no.804 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.22,100/- for the assured amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 36 It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificates number 375372 (Rs.80,000/-), 375373 (Rs.80,000/-) and 375374 (Rs.40,000/-) dated 11.07.2009 to the complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

41. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

42. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 37 complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1754 of 2011

43. Complainant Harjit Singh instituted the complaint no.827 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.8840/- for the assured amount of Rs.80,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificate number 375364, dated 11.07.2009 to the complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.80,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

44. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 38 the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

45. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1755 of 2011

46. Complainant Mandeep Singh instituted the complaint no.828 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.4420/- for the assured amount of Rs.40,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificate number 375362, dated 11.07.2009 to the complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 39 complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.40,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

47. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

48. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1756 of 2011

49. Complainant Makhan Singh instituted the complaint no.843 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 40 his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.8840/- for the assured amount of Rs.80,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificate number 375363, dated 11.07.2009 to the complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.80,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

50. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

51. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 41 complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1757 of 2011

52. Complainant Harvinder Singh instituted the complaint no.844 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.8840/- for the assured amount of Rs.80,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificate number 375365, dated 11.07.2009 to the complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.80,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

53. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 42 the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

54. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1758 of 2011

55. Complainant Gurpreet Singh instituted the complaint no.845 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.4420/- for the assured amount of Rs.40,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificate number 375375, dated 11.07.2009 to the complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 43 complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.40,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

56. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

57. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1759 of 2011

58. Complainant Mukand Singh instituted the complaint no.801 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 44 his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.17,680/- for the assured amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificates number 00451001 (Rs.80,000/-) and 00451003 (Rs.80,000/-), dated 11.07.2009 to the complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.1,60,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

59. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

60. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 45 arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1760 of 2011

61. Complainant Gurvinder Singh instituted the complaint no.863 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.26,520/- for the assured amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificates number 00451002 (Rs.80,000/-), 00451004 (Rs.80,000/-) and 00451005 (Rs.80,000/-), dated 11.07.2009 to the complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.2,40,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 46

62. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

63. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First appeal no.1761 of 2011

64. Complainant Kulwant Singh instituted the complaint no.868 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.8840/- for the assured amount of Rs.80,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificate number 00441258, dated 11.07.2009 to the complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 47 of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.80,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

65. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

66. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 48

First appeal no.1762 of 2011

67. Complainant Paramjit Kaur instituted the complaint no.801 of 2010 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') against the OPs on the allegations that he insured his crop for 62 days with effect from 15-07-2009 with OPs by paying the premium of Rs.17,238/- for the assured amount of Rs.1,56,000/-. It was further alleged that OP no.1 issued insurance certificates number 00441252 (Rs.80,000/-) and 00441253 (Rs.76,000/-), dated 12.07.2009 to the complainant for insurance of his crop. There was bad weather and bad rain fall in the paddy season of 2009 in Sangrur area. The complainant suffered loss to his paddy crop due to this dry spell. The complainant approached OP no.1, through OP no.2 for the settlement of insurance claim by submitting insurance certificate alongwith request letter, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying for compensation of claim amount of Rs.1,56,000/- for damaged crop alongwith interest 18% per annum and further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

68. OPs no.1 and 2 contested the complaint of the complainant on the same grounds, as given out in the written reply by OPs before District Forum in the complaint of main first appeal no.1741 of 2011. Since, it is sheer repetition only, if we reproduce the same reply again and again, hence we need not refer to them repeatedly.

First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 49

69. The complainant tendered in evidence the documents Ex.C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.2 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence. OP no.1 tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-14 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the compensation to complainant jointly and severally, as detailed in the order. Dissatisfied with the above order, OP no.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

70. Vide order dated 26.04.2012, this State Commission dismissed all the above referred first appeals as barred by time. Revisions petitions were preferred against the same by OP no.1/appellant, wherein the orders passed by this State Commission in above referred first appeals were set aside on payment of costs and resultantly the appeals were ordered to be decided on their merits on payment of costs. The appeals were taken on the record on payment of costs for adjudication.

71. The first submission raised by counsel for the appellant in all the above referred first appeals is that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainants and OP no.1. It was submitted that no premium has been paid by the complainants to OP no.1 and unless and until the premium is paid, the complainants would not become its consumer, as contemplated by Section 64 VB of Insurance Act. On the other hand, the First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 50 submission of counsel for the respondents in the above referred first appeals is that premium was paid by them to OP no.2, who was the agent of OP no.1 and as such the cover notes were issued to the complainants. It was replied by counsel for the appellant of these appeals that there was no question of issuance of any cover notes to complainants for insurance of their crops without payment of premiums. We have examined the submissions of counsel for the parties and also examined the evidence on the record in this regard. The complainants pleaded that they insured their crops with OP no.1 by paying the premiums, through its agent OP no.2. On the other hand, OP no.1 denied this fact in toto. The written reply filed by OP no.2 has also been examined by us, as it is pleaded to be the agent of OP no.1. OP no.2 has admitted this fact that the complainants obtained the services of OP no.1 by getting the insurance policies for their crops, as detailed in the respective complaints of the complainants. OP no.2 has admitted this fact in its written reply that it is the agent of OP no.1. We have also examined Non-Credit Franchise Agreement Ex.R-1 on the record. It was executed on 01.07.2005 between OP no.1 and OP no.2. This document Ex.R-1 is written record between OP no.1 and OP no.2 and has proved that OP no.2 is the agent of OP no.1. OP no.1 is bound by this agreement and hence, it does not lie in the mouth of OP no.1 to contend that OP no.2 was not its agent at that relevant time. In addition to that, the judgment has also been delivered by District Forum Sangrur in complaint no.435, decided on 19.10.2010 titled as "Ram Chand Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 51 another", wherein the liability of OPs was fixed, which was on the premise that OP no.2 was the authorized agent of OP no.1. On the basis of above referred documents, we hold that OP no.2 is the authorized agent of OP no.1. There is categorical evidence of the complainants contained in affidavits of complainants in all above referred complaints that premiums were duly paid to OP no.2, who received the same on behalf of OP no.1, as its authorized agent and resultantly the insurance cover notes were issued to the complainants on behalf of OP no.1. The reliance of counsel for the appellant is on Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, we find that there is no scope of issuance of cover note/insurance policy without receiving the premium. The payment of premium to authorized agent is deemed to be the payment received on behalf of principal. OP no.1 has not taken any action against OP no.2 for the embezzlement of this amount, as no police report lodged against it is on the record to prove it. No termination of agreement between OP no.1 and OP no.2 has been proved on record nor any disciplinary action which was taken nor any show cause notice was ever issued by OP no.1 to OP no.2 on the record. In the circumstances of the above cases, we repel the submission of counsel for the appellant that cover notes were issued without any premium in above referred complaints. This is interse matter between OP no.1 and Op no.2 to take action at their own level and poor complainants cannot be made to suffer for it. We, thus, hold that complainants are proved to be the consumers of OP no.1 on the basis of cover note/insurance policy purchased by the First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 52 complainants for the coverage of their paddy crops for the reason 2009.

72. The next argument raised before us by counsel for the appellant in the above referred first appeals is that the cover note of insurance is a fraud and fabricated document and it has not been issued by OP no.1. It was submitted that once the cover note has been alleged to be a fraudulent document by OP no.1 now appellant, hence the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to look into the matter. On the other hand, the submission of counsel for the respondents in these appeals is that premiums were paid by the complainants to OP no.2 in the above complaints and only then the cover notes were issued to them. It was submitted that it is very easy for the Insurance Company to allege fabrication of documents just to wriggle out of their liability in such type of cases. The contention of the complainants now respondents in above referred first appeals is that merely alleging that cover notes are fabricated documents by OP no.1, the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum cannot be excluded. It was further maintained that the Consumer Forum is quite competent to adjudicate the matter in summary procedure because no complex issue is involved in these cases. Now we have to decide this point as to whether the cover notes were issued in the above referred complaints for insurance of the crops being outcome of fraud and fabricated documents. The cover notes/insurance policies in all the above referred complaints Ex.C-1 have been examined by us. They are on the proformas, which are in possession of OP no.1 only. Even First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 53 the serial numbers are recorded on the same. The address of OP no.1 also existed on the said cover notes. The cover notes in all the above referred complaints have also been signed by the authorized signatory of OP no.1, who is different from OP no.2. Merely on the allegation of OP no.1 that cover notes are outcome of fraud and fabricated documents, we cannot throw out the case out of the jurisdiction of this Forum in the absence of any substantial matter on the record. The mere allegation of OP no.1 contending them to be forged documents is not sufficient to hold so in our opinion. This contention of OP no.1 now appellant of above referred appeals is not accepted by us.

73. The next argument of counsel for OP no.1/appellant of above referred first appeals is that policy documents were not available for Sangrur area nor it was issued by covering Sangrur region by OP no.1. It was argued that the Weather Insurance Policies were available only for Ludhiana, Jagraon and Khanna area and not for Sangrur area. While relying upon Ex.R-7, the submission of appellant of above referred appeals is that three types of premium are mentioned in respect of different calamities and Ludhiana, Jagraon and Khanna have been stated as the reference station from which weather data was to be collected. The weather data collected from the above regions cannot be applied to the Sangrur region area, as emphasized by counsel for the appellant. The counsel for the complainants now respondents of above referred appeals argued to the contrary by contending that the cover notes were specifically First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 54 meant for covering the Sangrur region and only reference station to Sangrur has to be considered for weather calculation. When the cover notes have been issued by OP no.1 covering the Sangrur area in these cases, hence the submission of the appellant cut no ice. Now we proceed to decide the next point falling for adjudication before us in these appeals is whether the cover notes/insurance policies covered the area of Sangrur region or not for insurance of the crops. The forceful submission of OP no.1 now appellant is that it covered the area of Ludhiana, Jagraon and Khanna only and not Sangrur region. The matter can be decided on the basis of perusal of cover notes by us. Cover notes Ex.C-1 in the all the above referred complaints have been examined by us. The cover notes specifically referred the reference weather station as 'Sangrur'. Once the contract between the parties pertained to reference weather station Sangrur, as recorded in cover notes/insurance policies, therefore, we repel the submission of the appellant that this reference weather station has to be considered of Ludhiana, Jagraon and Khanna only in these cases. The terms and conditions of cover notes itself discard the sting of the submission of counsel for appellant of above referred appeals.

74. The next argument raised by counsel for the appellant in the above referred appeals is that policy terms and conditions have not been produced by the complainants. It was submitted that complainants have not denied policy terms. The policy terms produced by the appellant have not been proved to be contradictory First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 55 or wrong and only the terms produced by OP no.1 so as to form the basis of claiming amount under the policy. The next point for adjudication is whether the terms and conditions of the insurance policies were produced by the complainants, when applied for by OP no.1 or not. It is the case of the complainants that only cover notes were supplied to them in the above cases. They were the seasonal weather insurance policies for brief period of two months period only. These insurance policies were for a very short span. As per pleaded and proved cases of the complainants, the cover notes alone were sent to them by the OPs. Now, OP no.1 relied upon the terms and condition thereof just to escape its liability to pay the compensation to the complainants. It is not recorded in the cover notes that any detailed terms and conditions of the policies would be sent to the complainants separately. The procedure to be followed in these cases and the method of calculation has also been set out in the cover notes themselves and hence, we find that the submission raised by the appellant is invalid to be discarded on this point. Cover notes themselves recorded the terms and conditions of the insurance policies in detail, which repel the contention of OP no.1 now appellant of above referred appeals that terms and conditions of insurance policies have not been produced on the record by the complainants in the above referred complaints.

75. The next submission raised before us by the appellant is that complainants are not proved to be the owners of lands and no documents have been produced on record to establish the First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 56 ownerships of lands by the complainants in the above referred complaints and in the absence of any ownership, there was no question for the complainants to seek any coverage under the alleged policies. It was vehemently urged before us that complainants are not the owners of the lands nor they have been proved to be so on the record. Generally, the cultivators, who grow the crops take the insurance policies to protect their crops and it is nowhere recorded in any contract or agreement that only legal owner of the land can get his crops insured. The cultivators or the growers of the crops in the fields, generally take these types of weather seasonal policies to protect their crops against hazard and catastrophe. Even tenants or persons in occupancy of the land can take these types of policies to protect their crops against weather vagaries.

76. The next point canvassed by counsel for the appellant in above referred appeal before us is that no claims were lodged with OP no.1, now appellant prior to filing of the complaints by the complainants and hence, the complaints are not tenable. Much stress has been put on the above contention by OP no.1, the present appellant of above referred appeals on this point. On the other hand, the contention of counsel for respondents is that it is set out in the cover notes themselves that it was obligatory on the part of OP no.1 to provide the insurance claim suo-motto on the basis of weather data collection of the area on production of cover note and request letter only. The complainants were not duty bound to apply for First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 57 insurance claims on regular proformas because it were a seasonal insurance policies just to cover the paddy crops for a very restricted period and OP no.1, now the present appellant, were under an obligation to provide the insurance claim on their own as per the stipulation in the cover notes. The terms and conditions of the cover notes are themselves explicit on this point. It is recorded in the terms and conditions of the cover notes that complainants/customers are required to present the weather insurance policy at the time of claim settlement and rest of the work regarding calculation of weather data is the obligation of the insurer. There is no stipulation in the cover note regarding lodging the insurance claim by the complainants with the OPs separately. This is a very short duration period policy in the season and due to this reason, the duty of the complainants is only to show the cover note and nothing else to OP no.1. Even OP no.2 has also admitted this fact that it sent the requests alongwith cover notes of the complainants to OP no.1 for settlement of their insurance claims. This contention of OP no.1 now appellant stands rejected by us, as propounded aboves

77. The last but not least submission of appellant is that even assuming arguendo that the insurance policies were for the Sangrur area on the basis of rain fall of Sangrur region, the amount as awarded by District Forum would not be payable even on that basis. Reliance was placed by OP no.1 now appellant on Ex.R-14, the affidavit of Gurpreet Kaur, Authorised Signatory/Manager (Legal) of OP no.1. The Meteorological Rain Data Ex.R-11 to R-13 of Sangrur, First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 58 which if taken for the assessment of the claim of the coverage of phase 2 (Dry spell), the claim trigger under the said phase was strike 1 i.e. minimum 11 days, under strike 2 i.e. minimum 26 days and under exit, it was 41 days meaning thereby, if there was no consecutive rain for more than 11 days, then the company was liable to pay Rs.33.33 ps. per day exceeding 11 days of dry spell between strike 1 and strike 2 and Rs.100/- per day was payable between the days of strike 2 and exit days and if dry days exceeded 41 days, then the sum insured of Rs.2000/- per acre was payable. It was argued that under reference weather station Sangrur, there are only 20 consecutive dry spell days during the policy period, as per the policy, the claim was payable for 9 days i.e. Rs.299.77 paise (per acre) and nothing was payable as per the data of weather reference station Ludhiana. We have considered the submissions raised before us by counsel for the appellant. We have examined the cover notes in the above referred complaints. The said cover notes recorded that "In the event that, in the reference weather station and during the time period specified, the Actual Weather Index is of a materially lesser or greater from the specified percentage of Weather Index, the benefit payable to the insured shall be the Standard Loss Rate, subject to a maximum of the sum insured as specified". It lays down that in case the weather index is of a materially lesser or greater from the specified percentage of Weather Index, the insured shall be entitled to the sum assured amount. We have examined the document Ex.C-2, the Certification of Weather data provided by NCMSL to ICICI Lombard GIC OP no.1 for First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 59 Weather Station Sangrur. The relevant period in the above policies pertained to 15th July, 2009 to 15th September, 2009. From perusal of this data collection index, it is evident that on 21-07-2009, the rain fall was 52.33 lesser than standard rain fall i.e.93. On 27-07-2009, the rain fall was 35.82 lesser than standard rain fall i.e.92. On 29-07-2009, the rain fall was 33.54 lesser than standard rain fall i.e.92. On 01-09-2009, the rain fall was 46.98 lesser than standard rain fall i.e.95. On all the other days, either there was no rain fall at all or rain fall was of the poorest standard. So in view of document Ex.C-2, the weather data of Weather Station Sangrur for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009 which has been collected by OP no.1 from National Collateral Management Services Limited, there was no rain fall on most of the days or it was of few minimal levels, which was much below the standard fixed rain fall in the insurance contract. After considering the above referred evidence on the record, we are of this view that the respondents/complainants of above referred appeals suffered the loss of their crops due to inadequate rain fall and the policy documents duly covered that. The complainants in the above referred complaints are entitled to insured amount for the insurance of their crops on the basis of contract of insurance. Since, the complainants have not preferred any cross appeal for enhancement of compensation and hence, in the absence of the same, we maintain the order of District Forum in above referred first appeals.

First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 60

78. As a result of our discussions, we find no merits in all the above referred first appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.

79. The appellant of first appeal no.1741 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.17,473/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

80. The appellant of first appeal no.1742 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.8753/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

81. The appellant of first appeal no.1743 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.10,206/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 61 shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

82. The appellant of first appeal no.1744 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.17,473/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

83. The appellant of first appeal no.1745 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.14,566/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

84. The appellant of first appeal no.1746 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.10,206/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 62 shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

85. The appellant of first appeal no.1747 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.20,379/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

86. The appellant of first appeal no.1748 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.17,472/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

87. The appellant of first appeal no.1749 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 63 shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

88. The appellant of first appeal no.1750 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

89. The appellant of first appeal no.1751 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

90. The appellant of first appeal no.1752 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 64 shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

91. The appellant of first appeal no.1753 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the orders of the District Forum.

92. The appellant of first appeal no.1754 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

93. The appellant of first appeal no.1755 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.17,472/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 65 shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

94. The appellant of first appeal no.1756 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

95. The appellant of first appeal no.1757 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

96. The appellant of first appeal no.1758 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.17,472/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 66 shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

97. The appellant of first appeal no.1759 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

98. The appellant of first appeal no.1760 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

99. The appellant of first appeal no.1761 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 67 shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

100. The appellant of first appeal no.1762 of 2011 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, still lying undisbursed, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant/respondent no.1, as per the order of the District Forum.

101. Arguments in above referred appeals were heard on 08.09.2015 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties of above referred appeals. The above referred all first appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER September 16, 2015.

(MM)

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Manjit Singh on 16 September, 2015