BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 248 of 2020. Date of Institution : 13.10.2020.
Date of Decision : 13.09.2024.
Daya Ram, aged about 40 years son of Shri Mahabir @ Mahavir, resident of village Dhukra, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
3. Block Agricultural Officer, Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Consumer Complaint no. 247 of 2020. Date of Institution : 13.10.2020.
Date of Decision : 13.09.2024.
Suresh Kumar, aged about 38 years son of Shri Mahabir @ Mahavir, resident of village Dhukra, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
3. Block Agricultural Officer, Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaints under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. B.C. Bhatiwal, Advocate for complainants Daya Ram and Suresh Kumar.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Parveen Godara, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainants of both the above said complaints have filed separate complaints under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops) on similar facts.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 28.02.2024, the complaint titled as Suresh Kumar Versus HDFC Bank etc. bearing No. 247 of 13.10.2020 was ordered to be clubbed with the complaint case of Daya Ram Versus HDFC Bank etc. bearing No. 248 of 13.10.2020 and as such both these complaints are being decided by this common order and they are being referred as complainants.
3. In brief, the case of both the complainants Daya Ram and Suresh Kumar who are both brothers is similar that they are agriculturists and are owners in possession of land measuring 6.3 acres and 6.4 acres respectively alongwith other land as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 situated in village Dhukra, Tehsil and District Sirsa and whole of their family are dependent upon income of seasonal crops. The complainants are having their bank account/ Kissan Credit Account with op no.1 and op no.1 bank is deducting amount of premium under PMFBY scheme continuously from the account of complainants since launching of said scheme and op no.1 bank also deducted premium amount from the account of complainants for insurance of their Kharif crop of 2018. It is further averred that whole cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 of complainants in their land was destroyed due to attack of natural calamity/ water logging and complainants suffered heavy loss. The complainants approached op no.2 insurance company and requested to pay compensation but op no.2 did not pay any heed to their requests. That complainants also requested op no.3 to make survey and assess loss of cotton crop which submitted report after survey of their fields that complainants have suffered loss however, ops have denied the genuine claim by simply shifting the liability on each other. It is further averred that they have been taking rounds to the office of ops for getting claim of their damaged crop and have been suffering unnecessary harassment due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of ops. Hence, both the complaints.
4. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version in the complaint of Daya Ram Versus HDFC Bank etc. submitting therein that bank has debited the amount of Rs.3672/- on 02.07.2018 from the account of complainant as insurance premium for Kharif 2018 and has credited the same to the account of op no.2. The bank has also debited the amount of Rs.2543.63 on 04.12.2018 as insurance premium for Rabi 2018-2019 and has credited the same to the account of op no.2. All the information required by op no.2 was sent to the insurance company as per rules. It is further submitted that as per clause 19 (xxii) of the Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department notification dated 30.03.2018, the insurance company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to the area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of cut off date and in case of any correction must report to the State Government failing which no objection by the insurance company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the insurance company to pay the claim. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
5. In the complaint case of Suresh Kumar Versus HDFC Bank etc., learned counsel for op no.1 suffered a statement that another complaint No. 248 dated 13.10.2020 titled as Daya Ram Versus HDFC Bank etc. has been filed with same account number and bank does not want to file reply in this complaint as detailed reply has already been filed in case titled as Daya Ram Versus HDFC Bank etc. for the same joint KCC account number and also prayed for clubbing of both the files and accordingly both the files were clubbed.
6. Op no.2 also filed separate but same written statements in both the cases taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that there is specific clause in operational guidelines i.e. 21.5.9.1 where detail procedure for localized claim has been mentioned in the table and further method and procedure has been prescribed which is required to be done with the evidence in clause 21.5.4.1 to 21.5.4.3. It is further submitted that as insurance company has neither been intimated or associated either by the farmer/ complainant(s) or by the Agriculture Department or by the bank, hence their valuable right has been infringed and serious prejudice has been caused to their right and due to such deficient act either on the part of complainant(s) or banker or department, insurance company cannot be burdened with the liability mere on the basis of one-sided report prepared without joining them, hence complaint is liable to be dismissed qua answering op. It is further submitted that portal data uploaded by the bank shown the cotton crop of complainant(s) in village Dhukra and there was no natural calamity or loss to the cotton crop of Kharif 2018 of village Dhukra uploaded by the banker of complainant(s). As such question of paying any compensation to the complainant(s) by answering op does not arise. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
7. Op no.3 also filed separate but same written statements in both the cases taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op is only liable to conduct the survey of loss and to prepare the report which has been done by op as per operational guidelines of Government of India and report has been forwarded for necessary action. It is up to higher authorities as well as insurance company who have power to disburse the claim of the complainant(s). Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
8. The complainants, ops no.1 and 2 led their respective evidence separately in both the cases whereas learned counsel for op no.3 stated that written version be read as its evidence.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
10. The op no.2 has placed on files report of Assistant Statistical Officer office of Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa as Ex.R2/3 in which it is reported that as per crop cutting experiments, the average yield of cotton crop of village Dhukra in Kharif, 2018 was 979.88 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta was 561.06 Kgs. per hectare. So, as per this report Ex.R2/3, there was no loss to the cotton crop of village Dhukra in Kharif, 2018 because as per operational guidelines of PMFBY there is loss of crop if the average yield of village is less than threshold yield of block. Since the average yield of village Dhukra was more than threshold yield of block, so as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, it cannot be said that there was any loss to the cotton crop of village Dhukra in Kharif, 2018 and that there was any loss of crop to the complainants. Moreover, report of loss is to be prepared on the basis of crop cutting experiments only as per operational guidelines of PMFBY and accordingly the report Ex.R2/3 is submitted on the basis of crop cutting experiment. Both the complainants have failed to prove any loss to their cotton crop of Kharif, 2018. In these circumstances, complainants are not entitled to any claim.
11. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in both the complaints and same are hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules and a copy of this order be also placed on the connected file titled as Suresh Kumar Versus HDFC Bank etc. bearing No. 247 of 13.10.2020. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President
Dt. 13.09.2024. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
