BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 236 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 12.10.2020.
Date of Decision : 08.11.2024.
Manjit Kaur wife of Shri Jagjit Singh son of Shri Harnek Singh, resident of village Panniwala Ruldu, Tehsil & District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.
2. Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Plot No. 149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh- 160002.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR …………………MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Sumit Soni, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Ms. Kiran, Statistical Assistant for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the loss of her cotton crop of Kharif, 2018.
2. In brief the case of complainant is that she is agriculturist and is owner in possession of 91/579 share out of land measuring 57 kanals situated in village Panniwala Ruldu, District Sirsa. She is having Kissan Credit Card account number 61340242642 with op no.1. That as per crop insurance scheme, op no.1 bank is deducted amount of premium under PMFBY scheme continuously from the account of complainant and similarly premium for insurance of her kharif and rabi crop of 2018 was also deducted by op no.1 bank but the ops wrongly shown the village name of the land of complainant as village Desu Jodha instead of Panniwala Ruldu in their record. It is further averred that whole of the cotton crop of 2018 sown by complainant was damaged due to attack of rainy flood, natural calamity and as such she suffered huge loss on account of damage of her cotton crop including amount of Rs.25,000/- per acre spent by her on sowing of the said crop but none of the ops have redressed her grievances and none of the ops have paid any compensation to her despite her several requests. The complainant is legally entitled for the compensation for the damage of her crop at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre but ops have failed to pay any amount to her despite her several rounds to them and they have caused unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version submitting therein that bank has debited the amount of Rs.1175/- from the account of complainant on 25.07.2018 and has credited the same to the account of Oriental Insurance Company as premium of the insurance. All the information required by insurance company was sent to the insurance company as per rules. The insurance company has never informed the complainant or the bank regarding any discrepancy in the record or information sent by the bank as per clause 19 (xxii) of Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018. Till date, the answering op has no knowledge that on what ground, the claim has been rejected by the company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement raising preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op has been arrayed/ impleaded as op no.2 asserting and pleading for awarding the claim/ compensation for the loss of cotton crop of Kharif 2018 of complainant of village Panniwala Ruldu, District Sirsa but no record of National Crop Insurance Portal and insurance with answering op has been placed on record either by complainant or by op no.1 bank. The op no.1 bank has not placed any such record showing and reflecting the answering op to be insurer for the crop of Kharif 2018 of complainant. The answering op was not insurer for the crop of kharif, 2018 of complainant of village Panniwala Ruldu, District Sirsa. No insurance premium either has been charged or paid by complainant directly or as a loanee with the bank as alleged. It is further submitted that otherwise also answering op had not been allotted any area in Haryana during the kharif 2018 season for implementation of PMFBY scheme. Even op no.1 bank has clearly mentioned in its reply that bank has debited the amount of Rs.1175/- from the account of complainant on 25.07.2018 and has credited the same to the account of Oriental Insurance Company as premium of the insurance which clearly shows that answering op has been wrongly impleaded and as such 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 complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.
7. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Satish Kumar, Chief Manager as Ex.RW1/A and statement of account Ex. RW1/1. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Deputy Director of Agricuture, Sirsa as Ex. RW3/A and documents Ex. R3/1 and Ex.R3/2. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities and ultimately learned counsel for op no.2 suffered a statement that as op no.2 has already moved an application for deletion of name of op no.2 therefore he does not want to lead any evidence.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
9. The complainant is claiming insurance claim for the damage of her cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in her land situated in village Panniwala Ruldu, District Sirsa. According to complainant, the ops have wrongly shown the village name of land of complainant as village Desu Jodha instead of Panniwala Ruldu in their record due to which he has not received any claim for the damage of her cotton crop of Kharif, 2018. Although, op no.1 bank has averred that premium amount for insurance of her cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 was paid by it to Oriental Insurance Company and not to op no.2 and similarly op no.2 has also averred that no premium for insurance of crop of complainant was paid by op no.1 bank to it, but there is nothing on file to prove on record that op no.1 bank after deducting premium amount from the account of complainant for insurance of her cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 uploaded the data of complainant on National Insurance Crop Portal and op no.1 bank provided hand written document to the complainant in which the op no.1 bank has admitted that village name of land of complainant was mentioned as Desu Jodha. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of op no.1 bank as firstly op no.1 bank has failed to prove on record that data was uploaded on portal which was correct and secondly in its hand written document the op no.1 bank has mentioned the village name of land of complainant as Desu Jodha. So, op no.1 bank is liable to pay the compensation for the damage of cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018. The op no.3 in order to prove loss to the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 has placed on file report of Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa as Ex.R3/1 according to which the average yield of cotton crop of village Panniwala Ruldu was 195.34 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Dabwali was 576.36 Kgs. per hectare. So as per this report Ex.R3/1 there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2018. The complainant owns less than nine kanals of land and as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to claim amount of Rs.20,000/- from op no.1 bank.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against op no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 bank to pay the claim amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.20,000/- from op no.1 bank alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op no.1 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua remaining ops no.2 and 3 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President,
Dated: 08.11.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
