State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... vs Jagmeet Singh & Anr. on 23 December, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.416 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 04.03.2011.
Date of Decision: 23.12.2011.
1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO House-3rd
Floor, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi, through its Authorized Signatory
Sh. Rajeev Chaudhary, General Manager.
2. Gurdarshan Singh s/o Joginder Singh, agent of Iffco-Tokio General
Insurance Co. Ltd. R/o village Bhatian Khurd, P.O. Bagrian, Tehsil
Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
.....Appellants.
Versus
1. Jagmeet Singh, aged 32 years, s/o Bakhshish Singh, R/o Village
Dhero Majra, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
2. The Bhumsi Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. Village
Bhumsi, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Secretary.
....Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
21.01.2011 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. G.D. Gupta, Advocate.
For respondent no.1 : Exparte.
For respondent no.2 : Sh. S.S.Salar, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
This order will dispose of the following 13 appeals directed against the separate similar orders dated 21.01.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short, "the District Forum'), as the question of law and facts involved in all these appeals are the same:-
Sr. Appeal Number Name of parties.
1. No.416 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs
Jagmeet Singh & Anr.
First Appeal No.416 of 2011 2
2. No.417 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs
Karnail Singh & Anr.
3. No.419 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs
Rupinder Singh & Anr.
4. No.420 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs
Paramjit Singh & Anr.
5. No.421 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs
Mazid Mohd. & Anr.
6. No.422 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs
Bashir Mohd. & Anr.
7. No.423 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs
Rashid Mohd. & Anr.
8. No.424 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs
Sucha Singh & Anr.
9. No.425 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs
Jaspal Singh & Anr.
10. No.426 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs
Sukhwinder Singh & Anr.
11. No.427 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs
Beant Singh & Anr.
12. No.428 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs
Sarabjit Singh & Anr.
13. No.429 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs
Baljit Singh & Anr.
The facts are taken from F.A. No.416 of 2011 "Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jagmeet Singh & Anr.", and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that respondent no.1/complainant (hereinafter called as "respondent no.1") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellants and respondent no.2, on the grounds that he is member of respondent no.2 and obtained the services of the appellant no.1 through respondent no.2 and appellant no.2, by getting insured his 10 acres of cultivated area of paddy crop under 'Weather Insurance Scheme' and paid Rs.827/- per acre towards premium for the sum assured of Rs.10,000/- per acre and in all, respondent no.1 paid Rs.8270/- for the total sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/-. The crops of respondent no.1 were insured for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009.
3. At the time of getting insurance, appellant no.2 told that in case, the rain will be less or excess than the normal, then the company will pay the claim amount i.e. sum assured as compensation. The appellant no.1 issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95524755 dated 01.07.2009 to respondent First Appeal No.416 of 2011 3 no.1 in respect of insurance of his crops in the name of respondent no.2 and no other document or terms and conditions were supplied to the respondent no.1 regarding the policy.
4. As per the insurance policy, the claim was to be paid without any application, on the basis of information derived from the Indian Metrological Department (IMD).
5. During the paddy season of 2009, the weather was very bad and the rain was very less than the normal as a result of which, the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and respondent no.1 suffered huge financial loss, besides mental tension and agony.
6. After the loss of crop, respondent no.1 approached the appellant through respondent no.2 and appellant no.2 for settlement of claim, but the appellant did not pay any heed to the requests of the respondent no.1 despite repeated visits. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants and respondent no.2. It was prayed that that the appellants and respondent no.2 may be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
7. In reply filed on behalf of the appellant no.1, preliminary objections were raised that the respondent no.1 has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint against appellant no.1. The complaint is not maintainable and complicated questions of law and facts are involved and matter cannot be decided in summary manner and respondent no.1 may approach the civil court. As per terms and conditions of the policy, upon happening of the event, giving rise to the claim under the policy, respondent no.1 was under obligation to supply a detailed statement in writing as per the claim form and other relevant material in respect of the claim and the submission of claim should have been irrespective of the date on which respondent no.1 gets knowledge about the event, but should not be later than First Appeal No.416 of 2011 4 90 days from the expiry of the date of policy. However, respondent no.1 did not lodge any claim with the appellant till date and filed the present complaint after the lapse of about 11 months and even after '90 days period' mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy and the claim of respondent no.1 does not fall within the ambit of the policy. The policy related to weather only i.e. 'Barish Bima Yojana' which is an index based insurance product which provides protection to farmers against deficiency in rainfall and covers shortfall of rainfall based on the variation between the 'Total Weighted Actual Rainfall' and Total Weighted Normal Rainfall', as provided under the schedule of the policy. Respondent no.1 is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct. The complaint has been filed against a Co- operative Society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and no legal proceedings lies against a co-operative society until and unless issuing a mandatory notice of a period of three months. Since no claim has been lodged with the appellant no.1, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellant no.1 and respondent no.1 is not a consumer as defined under the Act. The District Forum has no jurisdiction and the complaint is false and frivolous.
8. On merits, it was denied that the appellant no.1 insured the yield of paddy crop alleged to be sown by respondent no.1 in 10 acres of land. The policy was not linked to the declaration or non-declaration of drought, by any official agency and the actual yield of crops was not measured as the insurable event is rainfall deficiency and not the actual shortfall in the crop yield. The policy related to weather only i.e. 'Barish Bima Yojana'. The appellant no.1 was liable to pay the compensation amount in the event of shortfall of rainfall based on the variation between the 'Total Weighted Actual Rainfall' and Total Weighted Normal Rainfall' and to calculate the Total Weighted Actual Rainfall, the data is to be collected from the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) and other such weather stations, which confirm the standard of IMD in observing, recording and storing weather data. First Appeal No.416 of 2011 5 It was admitted that appellant no.1 issued joint certificate of insurance in the name of respondent no.2, insuring its members as per list furnished by respondent no.2. The insurance policy along with terms and conditions was explained to respondent no.2 in vernacular language, including respondent no.1. Appellant no.1 vide letter dated 13.08.2009 requested Regional Meteorological Centre, New Delhi, to provide monthly rainfall data of all available districts of Punjab for the month of July, 2009. As per the requirement of above department, appellant no.1 also sent a demand draft for Rs.1136/-. Regional Meteorological Centre vide letter dated 18.09.2009, provided rainfall data for Malerkotla, which showed that in the month of July, 2009, rainfall was 194 mm. and, as such, the Total Weighted Rainfall as per policy schedule comes to 291 mm. Thereafter, appellant no.1 vide letter dated 04.09.2009 approached Regional Meteorological Centre, New Delhi, for supplying rainfall data for August, 2009 and the requisite demand draft was also sent and the said department supplied the rainfall data of certain areas of Punjab, except Malerkotla, as rainfall data for Malerkotla station for the month of August, 2009 was not available with them. Thereafter, appellant no.1 sought the rainfall data for the month of September, 2009 and sent a DD for Rs.2412/- and as per record received from Regional Meteorological Department, the total rainfall in September, 2009 was 66 mm. and the Total Weighted Rainfall as per policy schedule comes to 33 mm.
9. Appellant no.1 issued the policy by pre-determining the Total Weighted Normal rainfall at 398.3 mm. on 'cumulative basis' in respect of the policy issued to respondent no.2 for its members and, as such, the 'Total Weighted Actual' rainfall on 'cumulative basis' was less by 18.7% as per policy schedule. Respondent no.2 at the time of purchasing the policy had chosen 'Claim Trigger 30% deficiency' in Total Weighted Actual rainfall as compared to Total Weighted Normal rainfall and as per Claim Payout Table which was supplied to respondent no.2, in case of rainfall deficiency to the extent of 20%, appellant no.1 had no liability to pay any claim. Since in the First Appeal No.416 of 2011 6 present case, rainfall deficiency was only 18.7%, which falls within 29.99% Claim Payout Table, as such, respondent no.1 is not entitled to any claim under the policy. All other pleas were repeated and denying all other allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
10. In reply filed by respondent no.2, it was admitted that the respondent no.1 is its member and he got insured the paddy crop under 'Barish Bima Yojana' from the appellant no.1 at the rate of Rs.827/- per acre. The appellant no.1 received the premium through respondent no.2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondent. Other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
11. In reply filed on behalf of appellant no.2, similar legal objections and similar pleas as taken by appellant no.1, were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
12. Parties led evidence in support of their respective versions by way of affidavits and documents.
13. The District Forum after hearing the counsel for parties and going through the documents and material placed on file, observed that it is the case of the appellants that terms and conditions along with policy schedule were supplied to respondent no.2 which means that neither the terms and conditions nor policy schedule was made available to respondent no.1(complainant) and in such a situation, the appellants cannot avail the benefit of the same and relied in this respect on "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs MKJ Corporation" III(1996) CPJ 8 (SC) and "M/s.Modern Insulators Ltd. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd." 2000(2) SCC 734. Further relying on "ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited versus Gurmeet & Anr.", 2009(3) CLT 184, in which it was held that deviation alone entitles to claim the insurance amount, though, proportionately, and not whole of it, therefore, going by the deficiency in rain even to the extent of 20%, held respondent First Appeal No.416 of 2011 7 no.1 would be entitled to the benefit of 20% of the insured amount of Rs.10,000/- per acre, which means that the rate of amount comes to Rs.2000/- per acre, therefore, the respondent no.1 would be entitled to the said amount per acre, multiplied by the area which was insured, and allowed the complaint directing the appellant no.1 to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rs.2000 x 10) along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.09.2009 till realization and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent no.1 within sixty days of communication of order.
14. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.01.2011, the appellants have come up in appeal.
15. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent no.2.
16. Respondent no.1 has not contested the appeal and has been proceeded against exparte.
17. Respondent no.2-Society obtained the insurance from appellant no.1, known as 'Barish Bima Yojana' Ex.R2 and the secretary of the Society signed the proposal-cum-declaration-cum-receipt. The period of insurance was from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009. Ex.R3 is the list of the members of the Society, which includes the name of the respondent no.1/complainant. Ex.R5 is the Weather Insurance Policy (Barish Bima Yojana) and the scope of the cover was to compensate against any significant deviation in the specified Weather Index as stated therein, within the specified geographical location and specified time period, subject to the maximum of the sum assured stated in the schedule of the policy.
18. The District Forum observed that the policy schedule was not supplied to respondent no.1, but to respondent no.2 which obviously means that neither the terms and conditions nor the policy schedule was made available to respondent no.1. It was further observed that going by the deficiency in rain fall, even to the extent of 20%, respondent no.1 would be First Appeal No.416 of 2011 8 entitled to benefit of 20% of the insured amount of Rs.10,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded the compensation.
19. We are not able to agree with the observations made by the District Forum. As discussed above, Weather Insurance Policy was taken by respondent no.2-Society for its members and Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 are the proposal, list of members of the Society, policy schedule and the policy. Once the respondent-Society has taken 'Barish Bima Yojana' for its members and paid a premium of Rs,2,60,505/- and obtained the policy and it was specifically mentioned that it was Weather Insurance policy i.e. 'Barish Bima Yojana', it cannot be expected that the farmers will pay the premium through the Society to appellant no.1, without knowing as to what 'Barish Bima Yojana' was, or the secretary of the Society or some other responsible person of the Society will not explain the bare minimum of the policy or the schedule as to under what conditions, the farmers are entitled to claim the loss on account of less rain. The District Forum committed a grave mistake, by observing that the terms and conditions of the policy or the policy schedule was not supplied to respondent no.1, forgetting that the policy was collectively taken by respondent no.2-Society for the welfare of its members and no individual has taken the policy or paid the premium directly to appellant no.1, but it was taken by respondent no.2-Society only. Thus, respondent no.2 has taken the policy on behalf of its members, including respondent no.1 and as discussed above, no farmer will pay his share of the premium to the Society, without knowing the details of the scheme.
20. The District Forum has altogether ignored the policy schedule of 'Barish Bima Yojana' which is part of the insurance policy and is Ex.R4. As per the policy schedule Ex.R4, Total Weighted Normal Rainfall (TWNR) index was 398.3 mm and the Claim Trigger was available in case of 30% deficiency in 'Total Weighted Actual Rainfall' as compared to TWNR index. First Appeal No.416 of 2011 9
21. As per Punjab BBY Scheme, 2009 Claim Sheet, in District Sangrur, as per Weather Station, Malerkotla, Normal Rainfall for the month of July, August, September was 398.3 mm i.e. Weighted Normal and the Actual Rainfall was 324.0 i.e. Weighted Actual and it was minus 18.7%. Thus, there was less rainfall to the extent of minus 18.7% than the normal rainfall. The District Forum has altogether ignored the policy schedule Ex.R4. The Weightage Table as per policy was as follows:
Weightage Table Month Weight Normal Rainfall(mm) Weighted Normal Rainfall July 1.50 147.4 221.1 August 1.00 137.7 137.7 September 0.50 79.1 79.5 TWNR Index 398.3 MM
22. Claim Payout Table was given below:-
Claim Payout Table RF Deficiency Sum Insured Payout Percentage 0% 0 10% 0 20 0 30% 7 40% 10 50% 15 60% 20 70% 25 80% 45 90% 70 100% 100 First Appeal No.416 of 2011 10
23. From the above, it is clear that as per BBY policy and the policy schedule, Weighted Normal Rainfall was 398.3 mm and the Actual Rainfall as per above Punjab BBY Scheme, 2009 Claim Sheet, was 324 mm and the deficiency in the rainfall was to the extent of 18.7%, whereas upto 20% of deficiency in rainfall, nothing was payable but if it was 30% or more, then as per the Claim Payout Table, appellant no.1 insurance company was liable to pay the amount. The rainfall Datas were collected by the appellant no.1 through correspondence from the Regional Meteorological Centre, New Delhi for the months of July and September, and for the month of August from Tehsildar, as per the Claim Sheet. Respondent no.1 has not been able to rebut the same in any manner, nor has produced any document on record to show any variance in the actual rainfall. Therefore, the data collected by appellant no.1 has to be taken to be correct and the same has been taken from recognized centres.
24. From the above discussion, it is clear that the District Forum has altogether ignored the material facts and the evidence on record and without considering the policy schedule, allowed the complaint of respondent no.1/complainant on conjectures and surmises and the order of the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
25. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
26. The appellants in F.A. No.416 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal, and another sum of Rs.10,000/- in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2011 of this Commission, vide receipt dated 15.04.2011. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.416 of 2011 11 F.A. No.417 of 2011:-
27. Similarly, in F.A. No.417 of 2011(Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Karnail Singh & Anr.), respondent no.1 got insured his 12 acres of cultivated area of paddy crop under 'Weather Insurance Scheme' for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009, and paid Rs.827/- per acre towards premium for the sum assured of Rs.10,000/- per acre and in all, respondent no.1 paid Rs.9924/- for the total sum assured Rs.1,20,000/-. The appellant no.1 issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95524755 dated 01.07.2009, without the terms and conditions of the policy. During the paddy season of 2009, the weather was very bad and the rain was very less than the normal as a result of which, the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and respondent no.1 suffered huge financial loss, besides mental tension and agony. It was prayed that that the appellants and respondent no.2 may be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,20,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
28. The complaint was contested by the appellants and respondent no.2 by filing their respective written versions.
29. After considering the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellant no.1 to pay Rs.24,000/-(Rs.2000 x 12) along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.09.2009 till realization and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent no.1 within sixty days of communication of order.
30. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.416 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jagmeet Singh & Anr.), the F.A. No.417 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Karnail Singh & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs. First Appeal No.416 of 2011 12
31. The appellants in F.A. No.417 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.12,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal, and another sum of Rs.12,000/- in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2011 of this Commission, vide receipt dated 15.04.2011. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. F.A. No.419 of 2011:-
32. Similarly, in F.A. No.419 of 2011(Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Rupinder Singh & Anr.), respondent no.1 got insured his 11 acres of cultivated area of paddy crop under 'Weather Insurance Scheme' for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009, and paid Rs.827/- per acre towards premium for the sum assured of Rs.10,000/- per acre and in all, respondent no.1 paid Rs.9097/- for the total sum assured Rs.1,10,000/-. The appellant no.1 issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95524755 dated 01.07.2009, without the terms and conditions of the policy. During the paddy season of 2009, the weather was very bad and the rain was very less than the normal as a result of which, the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and respondent no.1 suffered huge financial loss, besides mental tension and agony. It was prayed that that the appellants and respondent no.2 may be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,10,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
33. The complaint was contested by the appellants and respondent no.2 by filing their respective written versions.
34. After considering the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellant no.1 to pay Rs.22,000/-(Rs.2000 x 11) along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.09.2009 till realization and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent no.1 within sixty days of communication of order. First Appeal No.416 of 2011 13
35. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.416 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jagmeet Singh & Anr.), the F.A. No.419 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Rupinder Singh & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
36. The appellants in F.A. No.419 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.11,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal, and another sum of Rs.11,000/- in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2011 of this Commission, vide receipt dated 15.04.2011. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. F.A. No.420 of 2011:-
37. Similarly, in F.A. No.420 of 2011(Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Paramjit Singh & Anr.), respondent no.1 got insured his 11 acres of cultivated area of paddy crop under 'Weather Insurance Scheme' for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009, and paid Rs.827/- per acre towards premium for the sum assured of Rs.10,000/- per acre and in all, respondent no.1 paid Rs.9097/- for the total sum assured Rs.1,10,000/-. The appellant no.1 issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95524755 dated 01.07.2009, without the terms and conditions of the policy. During the paddy season of 2009, the weather was very bad and the rain was very less than the normal as a result of which, the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and respondent no.1 suffered huge financial loss, besides mental tension and agony. It was prayed that that the appellants and respondent no.2 may be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,10,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
38. The complaint was contested by the appellants and respondent no.2 by filing their respective written versions.
First Appeal No.416 of 2011 14
39. After considering the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellant no.1 to pay Rs.22,000/-(Rs.2000 x 11) along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.09.2009 till realization and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent no.1 within sixty days of communication of order.
40. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.416 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jagmeet Singh & Anr.), the F.A. No.420 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Paramjit Singh & Anr.) is is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
41. The appellants in F.A. No.420 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.11,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal, and another sum of Rs.11,000/- in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2011 of this Commission, vide receipt dated 15.04.2011. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. F.A. No.421 of 2011:-
42. Similarly, in F.A. No.421 of 2011(Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mazid Mohd. & Anr.), respondent no.1 got insured his 8 acres of cultivated area of paddy crop under 'Weather Insurance Scheme' for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009, and paid Rs.827/- per acre towards premium for the sum assured of Rs.10,000/- per acre and in all, respondent no.1 paid Rs.6616/- for the total sum assured Rs.80,000/-. The appellant no.1 issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95524755 dated 01.07.2009, without the terms and conditions of the policy. During the paddy season of 2009, the weather was very bad and the rain was very less than the normal as a result of which, the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and respondent no.1 suffered huge financial loss, besides mental tension and agony. It was prayed that that the appellants and respondent no.2 may be First Appeal No.416 of 2011 15 directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.80,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
43. The complaint was contested by the appellants and respondent no.2 by filing their respective written versions.
44. After considering the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellant no.1 to pay Rs.16,000/-(Rs.2000 x 8) along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.09.2009 till realization and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent no.1 within sixty days of communication of order.
45. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.416 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jagmeet Singh & Anr.), the F.A. No.421 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mazid Mohd. & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
46. The appellants in F.A. No.421 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.8,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal, and another sum of Rs.8,000/- in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2011 of this Commission, vide receipt dated 15.04.2011. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. F.A. No.422 of 2011:-
47. Similarly, in F.A. No.422 of 2011(Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Bashir Mohd. & Anr.), respondent no.1 got insured his 2 acres of cultivated area of paddy crop under 'Weather Insurance Scheme' for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009, and paid Rs.827/- per acre towards premium for the sum assured of Rs.10,000/- per acre and in all, respondent no.1 paid Rs.1654/- for the total sum assured Rs.20,000/-. The appellant no.1 issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95524755 dated 01.07.2009, First Appeal No.416 of 2011 16 without the terms and conditions of the policy. During the paddy season of 2009, the weather was very bad and the rain was very less than the normal as a result of which, the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and respondent no.1 suffered huge financial loss, besides mental tension and agony. It was prayed that that the appellants and respondent no.2 may be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
48. The complaint was contested by the appellants and respondent no.2 by filing their respective written versions.
49. After considering the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellant no.1 to pay Rs.4,000/-(Rs.2000 x 2) along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.09.2009 till realization and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent no.1 within sixty days of communication of order.
50. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.416 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jagmeet Singh & Anr.), the F.A. No.422 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Bashir Mohd. & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
51. The appellants in F.A. No.422 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.2,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal, and another sum of Rs.2,000/- in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2011 of this Commission, vide receipt dated 15.04.2011. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. F.A. No.423 of 2011:-
52. Similarly, in F.A. No.423 of 2011(Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Rashid Mohd. & Anr.), respondent no.1 got insured his 8 acres of First Appeal No.416 of 2011 17 cultivated area of paddy crop under 'Weather Insurance Scheme' for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009, and paid Rs.827/- per acre towards premium for the sum assured of Rs.10,000/- per acre and in all, respondent no.1 paid Rs.6616/- for the total sum assured Rs.80,000/-. The appellant no.1 issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95524755 dated 01.07.2009, without the terms and conditions of the policy. During the paddy season of 2009, the weather was very bad and the rain was very less than the normal as a result of which, the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and respondent no.1 suffered huge financial loss, besides mental tension and agony. It was prayed that that the appellants and respondent no.2 may be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.80,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
53. The complaint was contested by the appellants and respondent no.2 by filing their respective written versions.
54. After considering the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellant no.1 to pay Rs.16,000/-(Rs.2000 x 8) along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.09.2009 till realization and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent no.1 within sixty days of communication of order.
55. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.416 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jagmeet Singh & Anr.), the F.A. No.423 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Rashid Mohd. & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
56. The appellants in F.A. No.423 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.8,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal, and another sum of Rs.8,000/- in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2011 of this Commission, vide receipt dated 15.04.2011. Both these amounts with interest First Appeal No.416 of 2011 18 accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. F.A. No.424 of 2011:-
57. Similarly, in F.A. No.424 of 2011(Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sucha Singh & Anr.), respondent no.1 got insured his 2 acres of cultivated area of paddy crop under 'Weather Insurance Scheme' for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009, and paid Rs.827/- per acre towards premium for the sum assured of Rs.10,000/- per acre and in all, respondent no.1 paid Rs.1654/- for the total sum assured Rs.20,000/-. The appellant no.1 issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95524755 dated 01.07.2009, without the terms and conditions of the policy. During the paddy season of 2009, the weather was very bad and the rain was very less than the normal as a result of which, the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and respondent no.1 suffered huge financial loss, besides mental tension and agony. It was prayed that that the appellants and respondent no.2 may be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
58. The complaint was contested by the appellants and respondent no.2 by filing their respective written versions.
59. After considering the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellant no.1 to pay Rs.4,000/-(Rs.2000 x 2) along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.09.2009 till realization and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent no.1 within sixty days of communication of order.
60. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.416 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jagmeet Singh & Anr.), the F.A. No.424 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sucha Singh & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed First Appeal No.416 of 2011 19 by the District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
61. The appellants in F.A. No.424 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.2,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal, and another sum of Rs.2,000/- in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2011 of this Commission, vide receipt dated 15.04.2011. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. F.A. No.425 of 2011:-
62. Similarly, in F.A. No.425 of 2011(Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jaspal Singh & Anr.), respondent no.1 got insured his 10 acres of cultivated area of paddy crop under 'Weather Insurance Scheme' for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009, and paid Rs.827/- per acre towards premium for the sum assured of Rs.10,000/- per acre and in all, respondent no.1 paid Rs.8270/- for the total sum assured Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant no.1 issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95524755 dated 01.07.2009, without the terms and conditions of the policy. During the paddy season of 2009, the weather was very bad and the rain was very less than the normal as a result of which, the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and respondent no.1 suffered huge financial loss, besides mental tension and agony. It was prayed that that the appellants and respondent no.2 may be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
63. The complaint was contested by the appellants and respondent no.2 by filing their respective written versions.
64. After considering the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellant no.1 to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rs.2000 x 10) along with interest @ 9% per First Appeal No.416 of 2011 20 annum from 30.09.2009 till realization and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent no.1 within sixty days of communication of order.
65. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.416 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jagmeet Singh & Anr.), the F.A. No.425 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jaspal Singh & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
66. The appellants in F.A. No.425 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal, and another sum of Rs.10,000/- in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2011 of this Commission, vide receipt dated 15.04.2011. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. F.A. No.426 of 2011:-
67. Similarly, in F.A. No.426 of 2011(Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sukhwinder Singh & Anr.), respondent no.1 got insured his 6 acres of cultivated area of paddy crop under 'Weather Insurance Scheme' for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009, and paid Rs.827/- per acre towards premium for the sum assured of Rs.10,000/- per acre and in all, respondent no.1 paid Rs.4962/- for the total sum assured Rs.60,000/-. The appellant no.1 issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95524755 dated 01.07.2009, without the terms and conditions of the policy. During the paddy season of 2009, the weather was very bad and the rain was very less than the normal as a result of which, the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and respondent no.1 suffered huge financial loss, besides mental tension and agony. It was prayed that that the appellants and respondent no.2 may be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.60,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. First Appeal No.416 of 2011 21
68. The complaint was contested by the appellants and respondent no.2 by filing their respective written versions.
69. After considering the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellant no.1 to pay Rs.12,000/-(Rs.2000 x 6) along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.09.2009 till realization and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent no.1 within sixty days of communication of order.
70. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.416 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jagmeet Singh & Anr.), the F.A. No.426 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sukhwinder Singh & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
71. The appellants in F.A. No.426 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.6,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal, and another sum of Rs.6,000/- in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2011 of this Commission, vide receipt dated 15.04.2011. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. F.A. No.427 of 2011:-
72. Similarly, in F.A. No.427 of 2011(Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Beant Singh & Anr.), respondent no.1 got insured his 5 acres of cultivated area of paddy crop under 'Weather Insurance Scheme' for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009, and paid Rs.827/- per acre towards premium for the sum assured of Rs.10,000/- per acre and in all, respondent no.1 paid Rs.4135/- for the total sum assured Rs.50,000/-. The appellant no.1 issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95524755 dated 01.07.2009, without the terms and conditions of the policy. During the paddy season of 2009, the weather was very bad and the rain was very less than the normal as a result of which, the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and First Appeal No.416 of 2011 22 respondent no.1 suffered huge financial loss, besides mental tension and agony. It was prayed that that the appellants and respondent no.2 may be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
73. The complaint was contested by the appellants and respondent no.2 by filing their respective written versions.
74. After considering the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellant no.1 to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rs.2000 x 5) along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.09.2009 till realization and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent no.1 within sixty days of communication of order.
75. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.416 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jagmeet Singh & Anr.), the F.A. No.427 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Beant Singh & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
76. The appellants in F.A. No.427 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal, and another sum of Rs.5,000/- in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2011 of this Commission, vide receipt dated 15.04.2011. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. F.A. No.428 of 2011:-
77. Similarly, in F.A. No.428 of 2011(Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sarabjit Singh & Anr.), respondent no.1 got insured his 12 acres of cultivated area of paddy crop under 'Weather Insurance Scheme' for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009, and paid Rs.827/- per acre towards premium for the sum assured of Rs.10,000/- per acre and in all, respondent First Appeal No.416 of 2011 23 no.1 paid Rs.9924/- for the total sum assured Rs.1,20,000/-. The appellant no.1 issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95524755 dated 01.07.2009, without the terms and conditions of the policy. During the paddy season of 2009, the weather was very bad and the rain was very less than the normal as a result of which, the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and respondent no.1 suffered huge financial loss, besides mental tension and agony. It was prayed that that the appellants and respondent no.2 may be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,20,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
78. The complaint was contested by the appellants and respondent no.2 by filing their respective written versions.
79. After considering the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellant no.1 to pay Rs.24,000/-(Rs.2000 x 12) along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.09.2009 till realization and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent no.1 within sixty days of communication of order.
80. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.416 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jagmeet Singh & Anr.), the F.A. No.428 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sarabjit Singh & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
81. The appellants in F.A. No.428 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.12,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal, and another sum of Rs.12,000/- vide receipt no.675425 in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2011 of this Commission. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.416 of 2011 24 F.A. No.429 of 2011:-
82. Similarly, in F.A. No.429 of 2011(Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Baljit Singh & Anr.), respondent no.1 got insured his 2 acres of cultivated area of paddy crop under 'Weather Insurance Scheme' for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009, and paid Rs.827/- per acre towards premium for the sum assured of Rs.10,000/- per acre and in all, respondent no.1 paid Rs.1654/- for the total sum assured Rs.20,000/-. The appellant no.1 issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95524755 dated 01.07.2009, without the terms and conditions of the policy. During the paddy season of 2009, the weather was very bad and the rain was very less than the normal as a result of which, the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and respondent no.1 suffered huge financial loss, besides mental tension and agony. It was prayed that that the appellants and respondent no.2 may be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
83. The complaint was contested by the appellants and respondent no.2 by filing their respective written versions.
84. After considering the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellant no.1 to pay Rs.4,000/-(Rs.2000 x 2) along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.09.2009 till realization and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent no.1 within sixty days of communication of order.
85. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.416 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jagmeet Singh & Anr.), the F.A. No.429 of 2011 (Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Baljit Singh & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
First Appeal No.416 of 2011 25
86. The appellants in F.A. No.429 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.2,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal, and another sum of Rs.2,000/- in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2011 of this Commission, vide receipt dated 15.04.2011. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
87. The arguments in all this appeals were heard on 20.12.2011 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
88. The appeals could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
17. Copy of this order be placed in the following appeals:-
2. No.417 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Karnail Singh & Anr.
3. No.419 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Rupinder Singh & Anr.
4. No.420 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Paramjit Singh & Anr.
5. No.421 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mazid Mohd. & Anr.
6. No.422 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Bashir Mohd. & Anr.
7. No.423 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Rashid Mohd. & Anr.
8. No.424 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sucha Singh & Anr.
9. No.425 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Jaspal Singh & Anr.
10. No.426 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sukhwinder Singh & Anr.
11. No.427 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Beant Singh & Anr.
12. No.428 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Sarabjit Singh & Anr.
13. No.429 of 2011 Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs Baljit Singh & Anr.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member December 23, 2011.
(Gurmeet S)