BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 239 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 13.10.2020.
Date of Decision : 13.09.2024.
Mohar Singh, aged about 50 years son of Shri Surja Ram, resident of village Dhukra, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., SRB Building, Janta Bhawan Road, 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.
Complaint 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 complainant.
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 complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist and is owner in possession of land measuring 11 acres alongwith other land as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 situated in village Dhukra, Tehsil and District Sirsa and whole of his family is dependent upon income of seasonal crops. The complainant is having his 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 complainant since launching of said scheme and op no.1 bank also deducted premium amount from the account of complainant for insurance of his Kharif crop of 2018. It is further averred that whole cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 of complainant in 11 acres of land was destroyed due to attack of natural calamity/ water logging and complainant suffered heavy loss. The complainant approached op no.2 insurance company and requested to pay compensation but op no.2 did not pay any heed to his requests. That complainant also requested op no.3 to make survey and assess loss of cotton crop which submitted report after survey of his fields that complainant has suffered 75% loss for 11 acres and assessed loss of Rs.1,21,275/- per hectare on account of loss of crop and loss of expenses spent on sowing of crop, however, ops have denied the genuine claim by simply shifting the liability on each other. It is further averred that complainant has been taking rounds to the office of ops for getting claim of his damaged crop and has been suffering unnecessary harassment due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of ops. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version submitting therein that bank has debited the amount of Rs.11707.20 on 02.07.2018 from the account of complainant as insurance premium for Kharif 2018 and has also debited the amount of Rs.8109.68 on 04.12.2018 as insurance premium for Rabi 2018-2019 and credited the same to the account of op no.2 as premium of the insurance. 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. It is further submitted that complainant has concealed the true facts and twisted the same. In fact, complainant has an KCC loan account jointly with his brother Shish Pal who had also filed a separate complaint. 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 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 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 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 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. As such question of paying any compensation to the complainant by answering op does not arise. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.3 also filed written statement 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. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. The complainant, ops no.1 and 2 led their respective evidence whereas learned counsel for op no.3 stated that written version be read as its evidence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. The complainant in order to prove loss to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 has placed on file loss report submitted by Block Agriculture Officer, Nathusari Chopta as Ex.C4 in which it is mentioned that there was 75% loss. However, op no.2 has also placed on file 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 complainant. 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 and as such the report Ex.C4 which has not been prepared as per crop cutting experiment as per operational guidelines of PMFBY cannot be read and relied upon for determination of loss of crop of complainant. So, it appears that report Ex.C4 has been prepared in connivance with complainant and it is also not proved on record by complainant or by op no.3 through any cogent and convincing evidence that any authorized representative of the op no.2 insurance company was joined at the time of inspection of field of complainant, that said report bears the signatures of authorized representative of op no.2 or that any intimation about such loss was given to op no.2 as per operational guidelines of PMFBY. In these circumstances, complainant is not entitled to any claim.
9. 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
Dt. 13.09.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
