BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 17 of 2022.                                                                           

                                                         Date of Institution :    10.01.2022.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    14.08.2024.

1. Ram Kumar aged about 76 years son of Sh. Chuni Lal son of Sh. Kalu, 2. Rameshwar Singh son of Sh. Ram Kumar son of Sh. Chuni Lal, both residents of village Dhingtania, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                ……Complainants.

                             Versus.

1. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Cabin No.7, Third Floor, Agro Mall, Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana) – 134117, through its Branch Manager.

2. Punjab National Bank, Chandni Chowk, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.

3. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT                                   

                  SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.           

Present:       Sh. Anjani Kumar Gupta, Advocate for complainants.

                   Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.1.                                              

                    Sh.  Dinesh Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.                                      

                    Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.

ORDER:-

                   The complainants have 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 complainants is that they are agriculturists and are owners in possession of land measuring 94 kanals 05 marlas as per their share ( as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) situated in village Dhingtania, Tehsil and District Sirsa and sown paddy, cotton and guar crops in May, 2020 in their above mentioned land. That complainants raised crop loan under Kissan Credit limit facility from op no.2 on 28.01.2009 with limit of Rs.5,00,000/- on their land measuring 55 kanals 04 marlas and as per policy of the Government i.e. crop insurance scheme, op no.2 got insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 with op no.1 and op no.2 debited a sum of Rs.8166.26 on 29.07.2020 in the account of complainants as crop insurance premium and thus their cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 was got insured by op no.2 with op no.1. It is further averred that their cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 sown in land measuring 55 kanals 04 marlas was destroyed due to weather conditions and op no.3 surveyed the fields of village Dhingtania and submitted its report of damages of crops to ops no.1 and 2 and op no.1 thereafter settled the claim of farmers of village Dhingtania but very strangely declined the claim of complainants. That complainants and other farmers contacted the officers of op no.1 and inquired about non payment of their claim but they refused to entertain the claim of complainants. The complainant no.1 also moved an application to op no.3 and Deputy Commissioner Sirsa but to no effect and as such ops have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainants and have caused unnecessary harassment to them. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version submitting that only crop insurance coverage details of complainant no.2 Rameshwar Singh is found on the NCI portal, whereas no details of complainant no.1 Ram Kumar is found on the NCI portal. Thus, complainant no.1 is not the consumer of op no.1. It is further submitted that as per NCI portal coverage the cotton crop of complainants in village Dhingtania (42) Block Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa was not insured with the answering op during the above mentioned season by op no.2, whereas paddy crop of complainant no.2 in village Dhingtania is insured on the NCI portal. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to any claim for cotton crop in village Dhingtania from op no.1 under PMFBY during Kharif, 2020 season and as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, the op no.2 bank is responsible for claim regarding damage of their cotton crop, if any. It is further submitted that as there was shortfall in the actual yield of insured paddy crop in village Dhingtania during Kharif, 2020 season, therefore, area approach claim of Rs.72,089.36 is already paid on 25.10.2021 to the complainant farmer through AEPS in account no. 82550100048923. Thus, the eligible claims for the above mentioned season is already paid to the farmer and no other claim is payable as per PMFBY scheme. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.

4.                Op no.2 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that insurance claim was/is to be paid by insurance company and answering op had nothing to do with the same. The insurance claim shall be credited in the loan account of complainant as soon as same is remitted by insurance company. Moreover, the data with regard to the loss of crops in particular crop season and in particular area is collected/ generated, verified and complied by the Agriculture department and such data is then shared with concerned insurance company for the purpose of settlement of the claim of the farmers who suffered crop losses in a particular crop season. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.

5.                Op no.3 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or report of survey of loss of crop is to be prepared by op no.3 and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of op no.3 in this regard. The yield basis claims are settled by insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by op no.3 within specific time period and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.

6.                The complainants in evidence have tendered affidavit of complainant Ram Kumar as Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13.

7.                On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Geddam Gandhi Raju, Regional Manager as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Subhash Chander, Branch Manager/ Principal Officer as Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/4. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.RW3/A and documents Ex. RW3/1 and Ex. RW3/2.

8.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties, Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.3 and have gone through the case file.                                                           

9.                The complainants have claimed insurance claim for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2020. However, they have not proved on record any loss to their cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 through any cogent and convincing evidence. They have not placed on file any report regarding damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2020. As per operational guidelines of PMFBY, the insured farmer is eligible for the claim if the average yield of crop of their village is less than threshold yield of block. The complainants have not proved on record that what was the average/ actual yield of cotton crop in village Dhingtania in Kharif, 2020 and what was the threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta. Moreover, the complainants are also not entitled to any claim due to the fact that at the time of sanction of crop loan, they declared to the op no.2 bank that they will sow paddy crop in Kharif season. There is nothing on file to prove the fact that complainants ever informed the op no.2 bank regarding change of pattern of crop i.e. from paddy to cotton and as such op no.2 bank uploaded the crop name as paddy on the portal and as such op no.1 has already paid claim amount to the complainants for the loss of paddy crop as uploaded by op no.2 bank in their total land measuring 4.86 hectare as per Ex.R6 on the basis of damage of paddy crop in village Dhingtania. Since complainants have already paid claim amount of Rs.72,089.36 though for loss of paddy crop by op no.1 and as there is no report about loss of their alleged cotton crop of Kharif, 2020, so it cannot be said that loss of their cotton crop is more than of the amount of Rs.7,2089.36 and that they are entitled to any other claim amount. In these circumstances, complainants are not entitled to any other claim amount from any of the ops for alleged damage of their cotton crop.

10.              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: 14.08.2024.                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                        Redressal Commission, Sirsa.