BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 269 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 21.10.2020.
Date of Decision : 13.08.2024.
Puran Mal aged about 51 years son of Shri Chandu Ram, resident of village Gudiakhera, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Dena Bank Ltd. (Now Bank of Baroda), Lal Batti Chowk Branch Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. ABW Towers, Unit No. 511-512, 5th Floor, M.G. Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurugram- 122001 through its Director.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. K.R. Pilania, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant that he is an agriculturist and is having about 32 kanals of land situated at village Gudiakhera, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa. He has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on his above said land through account no. 131513031145. That as per crop insurance scheme, premium amount of Rs.2245.14 was deducted by op no.1 from above said account of complainant on 15.07.2019 for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 which was got insured with op no.2 by op no.1. It is further averred that said crop in his village including his crop was destroyed on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and report of damage of crops has been prepared by op no.3 and as such complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per acre. That op no.2 stated that amount of compensation of the villagers have already been released to op no.1 and when he contacted op no.1 he came to know that in the record sent to op no.1 for insurance of his crop by op no.1, his land has been shown in village Modiakhera instead of village Gudiakhera and as such it appears that both the ops in collusion with each other have deliberately done so for causing loss to the complainant with a malafide intention. That this amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of ops and complainant is legally entitled to get claim of damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 from the ops. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that at the time of insurance complainant was very much present in the branch and in his presence, answering op has uploaded the data disclosed by complainant as required by op no.2. The op no.2 never pointed out any discrepancy in the data of complainant. As per terms of agreement as well as insurance policy, it is the insurance company who has to verify the data of consumer and point out discrepancy if found therein to answering op or to the complainant within two months from the date of insurance. The amount of insurance premium is still lying with op no.2 and has not been refunded till today. Hence, it is op no.2 who is liable to indemnify the loss of crops of complainant, if any. It is further submitted that answering op has not charged any penny for itself on account of any insurance, hence there has been no liability of answering op to pay any compensation to the complainant. 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 submitting therein that as per NCI portal coverage the crop of complainant in village Gudiakhera, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa was never insured with answering op during above mentioned season whereas his crop in land of village Modiakhera (93) Block Nathusari Chopta,m District Sirsa was insured by op no.1 bank. So, the complainant is not entitled to any claim from op no.2 and as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, op no.1 bank is responsible for said mistake. 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 complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.
7. On the other hand, op no.1 bank has tendered affidavit of Sh. Naveen Sharma, Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1/1 and Ex.R1/2. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Geddam Gandhi Raju Regional Manager as Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/12. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex. RW3/A and documents Ex.RW3/1 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 claim of complainant for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 has been denied by op no.2 on the ground that op no.1 bank uploaded wrong village name of the land of complainant on the portal as op no.1 bank uploaded village name as Modiakhera instead of village Gudiakhera which fact is also evident from documents Ex.R2/9 and Ex.R2/10. Admittedly the complainant is having his land in village Gudia Khera which is also evident from copy of jamabandi Ex.C5. As such reason of denial of claim of complainant by op no.2 is due to difference of village name of the land of complainant. The complainant in order to prove loss to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 in his village Gudiakhera has placed on file letter/ report of Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa as Ex.C4 and op no.3 has also placed on file report in this regard as Ex.RW3/2 and as per both these reports the average yield of cotton crop of village Gudiakhera in Kharif, 2019 was 198.17 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta was 572.40 Kgs. per hectare. Since as per these reports Ex.C4 and Ex.RW3/2, the average yield of village Gudiakhera remained less than threshold yield of block, therefore, as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss of cotton crop in village Gudiakhera in Kharif, 2019 and as such there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2019 was Rs.76,600/- per hectare as is evident from Haryana Govt. notification dated 24.05.2019 Ex. RW3/1. So as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.81,000/- for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 in his 32 kanals of land. Since, it is proved on record that op no.1 bank wrongly uploaded the name of land of village of complainant as Modiakhera instead of Gudiakhera on the portal, therefore, as per clause of the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the op no.1 bank is only liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.81,000/- to the complainant and no liability of op no.2 insurance company or of op no.3 towards the complainant is made out.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint qua opposite party no.1 bank and direct the op no.1 bank to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.81,000/- 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 above said amount of Rs.81,000/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment from op no.1 bank. We also direct the op no.1 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua 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
Dt. 13.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
