BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 416 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 28.06.2022.
Date of Decision : 19.03.2024.
Gurbans Singh (aged about 38 years) son of Sh. Hardev Singh son of Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, resident of village Rori, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Agriculture Insurance Company, Head Office: Block-1, 5th Floor, Plate – B & C, East Kidwai Nagar, Ring Road, New Delhi- 110023 through its Managing Director / Authorized Signatory.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Manjeet Singh Dandiwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as Op).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist and his whole family depends on agricultural income. He is cultivating land measuring 07 acres situated in village Rori, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018. That as per crop insurance of Government, the premium amount of Rs.7746.77 for insurance of his Kharif crop of 2020 has been paid by complainant to op vide receipt no. 0401062000107938380 vide which cotton crop of Kharif 2020 was covered under the insurance policy. The complainant had sown cotton crop in Kharif 2020 in his agricultural land which was taken by him on lease. It is further averred that said cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2020 has been damaged to the extent of 100% due to natural calamities, pests/ diseases and heavy rain and said fact has also been verified by Agriculture department and submitted its report to op. That op has not paid any compensation for the damage of his above said crop despite his several requests whereas other farmers have already received compensation and as such op has caused deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint seeking claim amount of Rs.2,10,000/- for the damage of cotton crop and also seeking amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and also litigation expenses.
3. On notice, op appeared and filed written version submitting therein that as there was no shortfall in the actual crop yield of cotton crop of complainant in the notified village Rori (167) Block and District Sirsa during Kharif, 2020 season, therefore, no area approach claims became payable to the complainant farmer as per PMFBY scheme provisions and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The learned counsel for complainant in evidence has tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.
5. On the other hand, OP has tendered affidavit of Sh. Geddam Gaqndhi Raju Regional Manager as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R12.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. The complainant has claimed insurance claim amount for the loss of his insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 from op. But from village wise tabulation sheet produced by op alongwith letter Ex.R12, it is evident that Agriculture department, Sirsa has reported that the average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 of village Rori was 836.57 Kgg. per hectare whereas average yield of block was 554.372 Kgs. per hectare and as the average yield of village Rori was more than threshold yield of block therefore, as per operational guidelines of PMFBY there was no loss to the cotton crop of kharif, 2020 in village Rori. So, it is also proved on record that there was also no loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2020. Learned counsel for complainant contended that as per special girdawari Ex.C3, there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant to the extent of 42% but however no such order of any competent authority about preparing of special girdawari has been placed on record. Moreover, as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, the insurance claim for the damage of crop is calculated and paid when the actual/ average yield of village is less than threshold/ average yield of block and since as per above said report of Agriculture department itself, there was no loss to the above said crop in village Rori, therefore, complainant is not entitled to any claim amount/ compensation from the op and complaint deserves dismissal.
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 President,
Dated: 19.03.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
