BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 125 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 05.07.2021.
Date of Decision : 10.12.2024.
Kuldeep Singh aged about 30 years son of Shri Nathu Ram @ Baldev, resident of village Chaharwala, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Head Office: Plate B&G, 5th Floor Office, Block I, East Kidwai Nagar, Opp. AIIMS Gate 2, New Delhi- 110023 through its authorized person.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Regional Office, Cabin No.7, 3rd Floor, Agro Mall, Sector 20 Panchkula-134117 through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. R.S. Bhakar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER:-
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (herein after referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is permanent resident of village Chaharwala, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa. That one Ram Swaroop son of Shri Inderaj, resident of village Chaharwala is the recorded owner of land measuring 372 kanals 01 marla situated at village Chaharwala. It is further averred that vide writing dated 01.05.2020, the complainant had taken possession of land measuring 160 kanals out of aforesaid total land of Ram Swaroop for the purpose of cultivation of same on lease basis for a period of one year i.e. from 01.05.2020 to 30.04.2021 and had paid Rs.5,65,000/- to said Shri Ram Swaroop as lease money. That complainant had sown cotton crop in 80 kanals of land and Gwar and Bajra crops over the remaining 80 kanals of land. It is further averred that after sowing cotton crop over 80 kanals of land, the complainant got the same insured with the ops under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna through online portal and had paid a sum of Rs.16,309/- as premium against proper receipt dated 30.07.2020 and as per receipt received by complainant, in case of any kind of damage to the insured crops, the sum assured was Rs.3,26,180/-. Similarly other farmers of the village have also got their respective crops insured through ops under different policies. It is further averred that unfortunately due to natural calamities, the cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 of almost all the farmers of village was damaged and information in this regard was supplied to the authority concerned and accordingly the survey of the spot was conducted and after completion of all the necessary formalities, almost all the farmers have received the amount of compensation but complainant did not amount of compensation. That complainant being the policy holder approached the ops and requested them to compensate him as per the damages caused to his crops and lodged his claim with the ops under the said policy but firstly the ops kept on avoiding the request of complainant with one false pretext or the other and ultimately on 21.04.2021, the ops have repudiated the claim of complainant with the remarks “Rejected because the uploaded land documents i.e. jamabandi does not have the insured farmer name and insured village name”. It is further averred that the manner in which the aforesaid claim of complainant was repudiated by ops is totally wrong, illegal and unlawful and same is against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy because complainant got insured his above said cotton crops through online portal of ops and at the time of filing necessary particulars online, all the necessary and claimed information was supplied by complainant to the ops and amount of premium was duly accepted by ops after admitting the aforesaid information supplied by complainant as true and satisfactory and no objection whatsoever was raised by ops at that time. That after receipt of repudiation letter, the complainant again approached the ops and requested them to indemnify his claim but ops did not bother to the same and have declined to accept the request of complainant and have caused deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant and have adopted unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops no.1 and 3 (now ops no.1 and 2 as per amended title) appeared and filed written version submitting therein that complainant farmer has mentioned his NCI-portal application no. but not mentioned his farmer ID no. in the complaint as the same are required to ascertain his crop insurance coverage. That neither the complainant farmer has given particulars about farmer name and father’s name nor provided the crop village name in the land ID document. Therefore, the complainant’s application is rejected because the jamabandi as uploaded on the NCI portal of Govt. of India does not bear the name of the farmer and there is no tenancy agreement uploaded on the NCI portal. Hence, his crop insurance coverage is denied. It is further submitted that applicant/ complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act as the details of the applicant/ complainant were not provided by the complainant in the land documents, which is mandatory as per PMFBY. That the claims are payable as per the provisions of PMFBY and State Govt. notification. It is specifically mentioned here that as per scheme provisions, the farmers having insurable interest in the notified crops are eligible for crop insurance provided their crop insurance coverage details are uploaded in the National Crop Insurance Portal by the concerned bank in case of loanee farmers or by the insurance intermediaries/ CSC/ directly online, if he is a non loanee farmer. It is further submitted that on the basis of application ID no. mentioned in the complaint, it has been found that the complainant is a non loanee farmer whose application is rejected because the jamabandi does not belong to the farmer and the tenancy agreement also not uploaded in the NCI portal. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Jaswant Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Sh. Rohtash Kumar Ex.CW3/A and affidavit of Sh. Ram Swaroop owner of land as Ex.CW4/A and documents Ex,.C1 to Ex.C14.
5. On the other hand, ops have tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
7. The complainant who had taken the above said 160 kanals of land on lease basis from its owner namely Sh. Ram Swaroop intended to get insured the cotton crop sown in Kharif, 2020 with the ops and accordingly he applied for the insurance of his cotton crop sown in 80 kanals of land with the ops through online process through Common Service Centre being non loanee farmer and accordingly premium amounts of Rs.9785.4 and Rs.6523.6 were paid to the ops from the bank account of complainant through online service by Common Service Centre. However from the application status Ex.R10 and Ex.R11 it is evident that application of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 was rejected and the reason of rejection is given by ops that farmer name and father name i.e. name of complainant and his father name is not mentioned in the land document i.e. jamabandi etc. Although jamabandi which is in the name of owner Ram Swaroop was uploaded on the portal at the time of applying for insurance of cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 by complainant but as name of complainant and his father name was not in any land document, therefore, his application was rejected by ops. In this regard there is own fault of complainant himself while uploading the data/ detail of complainant on the portal because no document regarding lease deed was uploaded on the portal and as such as there was no name of complainant in any land document, therefore, his application was rejected. In this regard para 35.7.5 of operational guidelines of PMFBY stipulates that the CSC (VLEs) are required to fill up the correct details of non loanee cultivators and upload the requisite documents alongwith their mobile number of National Crop Insurance Portal and remit the premium amount through CSC portal well within the stipulated time. Due care should be taken in filling up the details in the application form of each insured non loanee farmer and it should be matched with documents attached with the application. Since the complainant was a lessee whose name was not in the revenue record i.e. jamabandi etc. as he had taken the land on lease basis from owner Ram Swaroop, therefore, it was required for the complainant to get uploaded lease document on the portal but he has failed to do so. The ops have already refunded back the premium amounts to the complainant on 11.02.2022 as is evident from the documents placed on file by learned counsel for ops during the course of arguments. In these circumstances discussed above, the complainant is not entitled to any claim for the damage of his cotton crop of kharif, 2020 due to above said lapses on the part of complainant himself.
8. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President,
Dated: 10.12.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
