BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 243 of 2020.                                                                       

                                                       Date of Institution :    13.10.2020.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    13.09.2024.

Dharampal aged about 39 years son of Shri Bhal Singh, resident of village Dhukra, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1.  Branch Manager,  Punjab National Bank Jamal/ Sirsa, 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 2.5 acres and 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 crop of Kharif, 2018 of complainant in his land was destroyed due to attack of natural calamity and 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 loss of 75% 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. Learned counsel for op no.1 suffered a statement that alleged account number in the complaint is not KCC account with the bank, therefore, bank does not want to file any reply/ written statement.

4.                Op no.2 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op did not receive any premium against account number, name of farmer and land mentioned by complainant. However, if bank had failed to pay the premium of insurance for getting the coverage of insurance of crop of complainant of said village, in that eventuality, answering op cannot be held liable to make payment of any damages, if any and compensation to the complainant. On the portal there is no entry of coverage against the account number of complainant through the bank regarding the crop mentioned in the complaint. 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 and op no. 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.                There is nothing on file to suggest that any premium amount was deducted by op no.1 bank from the account of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018. Further, 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 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. Although 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.C2 in which it is mentioned that there was 75% loss of crop due to water logging but the said report Ex.C2 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.C2 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. So, the complainant has failed to prove any loss to his cotton crop and he has also failed to prove that his said crop was got insured by op no.1 with op no.2. 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.