Haryana

Ambala

CC/41/2020

Sukhdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deputy Director of Agriculture - Opp.Party(s)

Bhajan Singh Behgal

02 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	41 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	03.02.2020
Date of decision	:	02.11.2023

Sukhdev Singh son of Shri Teja Singh, resident of village Dhanura, PO Durana, Tehsil Ambala Cantt District Ambala.         

……. Complainant

Versus

1. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Deptt. Of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Ambala
2. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Durana Branch, Ambala.
3. The Mohra Primary Agriculture Co-op Society Ltd. Mohra District Ambala, through its Branch Manager
4. Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance company, SCO-335-336, 1 & 2^nd  Floor, Sector-35-B, Chandigarh..

 

….…. Opposite Parties.

 Before:      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri B.S. Behgal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant

                   Shri Mahender Singh, Legal Assistant, DDA Office, Ambala,  Authorized Representative of OP No.1

                   Shri Rattan Lal Mundan, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2

                   Shri Navneet Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3

                   Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.4

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

(a) To release the claim of paddy crop, 2018 of the complainant @ Rs. 29,600/- approx. per acre along with interest @24% p.a.

 

(b) To pay as compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on account of mental harassment, agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant.

 

(c) To pay cost of the litigation.

Or

Grant any other relief to which this Hon'ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and is owner of 10 acres of agricultural land situated in village Dhanura , Tehsil Ambala Cantt, Distt. Ambala. The Govt. of India launched a policy for the farmer for the insurance of their crops under the scheme PMFBY through different banks, controlled by the OP No.1. The crops of the complainant was duly insured by OP No.4 and the premium amount of Rs.5160/- was deducted on 31.07.2018 from the account of the complainant (No.1050008800006255) maintained with OP No.2 (PNB). The complainant had sown crop of paddy in the above mentioned agricultural land during the month of June and first week of July 2018. In the month of last week of September and October, 2018 the paddy crop was matured and the complainant spent huge amount in the form of pesticides, fertilizers, irrigations etc. The entire crop of the complainant was destroyed in the month of October, 2018 due to heavy rain and hailstorms and till date no compensation has been received by the complainant from the OPs. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction, time barred and cause of action etc.  On merits, it has been stated that the complaint against the OP No.1 is not maintainable as its role is restricted to forward the application of the complainant to the other OPs. OP No.1 is just a channel of liaisoning agency between farmers, Banks and the Insurance Company and have no control on OPs No.2 to 4. OP No.1 is not the office of disbursing any compensation to any farmer. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction, estoppal, bad for non-joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties and time barred etc.  On merits, it has been stated it is neither loss assessing agency nor the loss assessment is to be ascertained by it nor claim processing, approval and settlement relates to in any manner to the answering OP. All the functions qua release of claim amount are to be discharged either by OP No.1 or OP No.4.  The officials of OP No.2 performed their act and duties in accordance with the statutory provisions, notifications and the rules framed in respect thereto by the Central Government and State Government and the directions issued by head office of the bank, which is abundantly clear from the entries existing in the original ledger and computerized data maintained by it. The complainant never informed OP No.2 with respect to the loss or damage caused to the crop grown. OP No.2 is under obligation to pay the prescribed insurance premium from the account of respective borrower/insured farmer before the cut off date as notified under the scheme i.e. 31" July and 31" December of each year and the insurance charges under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana were charged as per rules against the landholding of the complainant, which are compulsory chargeable under the said scheme and the particulars thereof were uploaded on the prescribed portal by the officials of OP No.2 while discharging their officials duties in ordinary and usual course of business. The insurance claim is to be assessed on the basis of actual loss caused to the crop on account of Natural Disaster either by the Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department Krishi Kender, Ambala City or by the related Insurance Company, while taking legal recourse under the statutory provisions enacted under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY). OP No.2 has been unnecessarily dragged into an uncalled litigation. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections with regard to the fact that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complaint is false and frivolous; the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands; the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties; the complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; the complaint is barred by law of limitation etc. On merits, it has been stated by OP No.3 that it is wrong that the complainant is the owner in possession of 10 acre of agriculture land situated in Village Dhanora (Ambala). The complaint failed to aver that how much amount was spent in form of pesticides, fertilizers etc. as alleged. The crop of the complainant was insured with OP No.4 and payment of insurance premium of the crop was to be paid by OP No.4. It is false and wrong that the entire crop of the complainant was destroyed due to heavy rain and hailstone. The complaint failed to follow the due procedure of law in case of loss of crop. As a matter of fact, the complainant failed to approach DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and the decision of said department is binding on all state governments/insurance company/banks as well farmers. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
6.           Upon notice, OP No.4 appeared and filed written version wherein it  raised preliminary objections to the effect that this complaint deserves to be dismissed in limine for want of cause of action; the present dispute is not a consumer dispute; the complaint involves complex questions of fact & law that requires production of voluminous evidence, oral as well as documentary; Civil Court is the competent authority to adjudicate the issues involved in the complaint etc. On merits, it has been stated that  OP No.4 did not receive any localized claim, as such, it did not assess the claim of the complainant in localized manner. The crop insurance was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) which operates on area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as  insurance units. In village Dhanora (187), the actual yield was 3549.38, whereas the threshold yield was 2884.14. Since the actual Yield (AY) Kilogram/Hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) Kilogram/Hectare for Paddy crop sown in village Dhanora (187), therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any claim, on the basis of the formula given in the operational guidelines, Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY). Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.4 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, Authorized Representative of OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Girish Nagpal, Deputy Director of OP No.1-Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ambala as Annexure OP-1/A and closed evidence on behalf of the OP No.1. Learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Puran Chand Ranga, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Durana, Village Durana, Tehsil and District Ambala as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith document Annexure OP-2/1 & OP-2/2 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.2. Learned counsel for OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Harpal Singh, President, The Mohra PACS Ltd. Mohra (Ambala) as Annexure OP-3/A alongwith document- Annexure OP-3/1 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.3. Learned counsel for OP No.4 tendered affidavit of Nishant Gera, Authorized Signatory of OP No.4-SBI General Insurance Company Limited, as Annexure OP-4/A alongwith documents-Annexure OP-4/1 to OP-4/3 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.4.
8.            We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs No.1 to 4 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
9.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not making payment of the loss suffered by the complainant despite the fact that his crop was insured under the policy in question, the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice and also deficient in providing service.
10.           On the other hand, Authorized Representative of OP No.1 submitted that complaint against the OP No.1 is not maintainable as its role is restricted to forward the application of the complainant to the other OPs. He further submitted that OP No.1 is just a channel of liaisoning agency between farmers, Banks and the Insurance Company.
11.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that OP No.2 is acting as per  directions and guidelines of the Government as per PMFY. He further submitted that premium amount was deducted from the account of the complainant and the same was credited in the account of OP No.4 and it was OP No.4 which has to compensate the complainant for the loss of crop and not OP No.2.
12.           Learned counsel for OP No.3 submitted that it is wrong that the complainant is the owner in possession of 10 acre of agriculture land situated in Village Dhanora (Ambala). It is false and wrong that the entire crop of the complainant was destroyed due to heavy rain and hailstone and that he failed to follow the due procedure of law in case of loss of crop. He further submitted that the crop of the complainant was insured with OP No.4 and payment of insurance premium of the crop was to be paid by OP No.4 only.
13.           Learned counsel for OP No.4 submitted that the crop of the complainant was insured under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) which operates on area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as insurance units. He further submitted that since the actual Yield (AY) Kilogram/Hectare was more than Threshold Yield (TY) Kilogram/Hectare for Paddy crop sown in village Dhanora (187), therefore, complainant is not entitled to get any claim, on the basis of the formula given in the operational guidelines, Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY). 
14.           The first question that falls for consideration is, as to whether this complaint is time barred or not. It may be stated here that if the period of two years is counted from October 2018 i.e. when the paddy crop of the complainant was destroyed , this complaint having been filed on 03.02.2020, is within limitation. Thus, objection taken regarding time barred is rejected.
15.           Coming to the merits of this case, it may be stated here that from the perusal of Jamabandi, Annexure C-1, it is evident that the agriculture land of the complainant is situated in Village Dhanora, H.B. No.187, Ambala. It is coming out from the insurance policy Annexure OP-4/1 that the agriculture land of the complainant measuring 3.51 hactare was insured with OP No.4 for an amount of Rs.2,57,985/- for which OP No.4 had received premium amount of Rs.7739.54. As per the survey report dated 27.05.2022, Annexure C-5, issued by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Ambala, it is clearly mentioned that the loss to the paddy crop in Kharif Season-2018, in the village Dhanora, H.B. No.187  was to the extent of 88%. However, to wriggle out of the situation, learned counsel for  OP No.4 submitted that after receiving the data of loss of paddy crop of the village Dhanora, H.B. No.187,  from the sample survey report dated 18.09.2018 Annexure OP-4/2 and dated 18.01.2019 Annexure OP-4/3, from which it is crystal clear that the actual yield of the paddy crop in the Village Dhanora, H.B. No.187,  was more than threshold yield, therefore no claim is payable for the paddy crop sown by the complainant in Village Dhanora.  It may be stated here that letter dated 27.05.2022 Annexure C-5, was issued by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Ambala and letters dated 18.09.2018 Annexure OP-4/2 and dated 18.01.2019 Annexure OP-4/3, were issued by the Director, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana, Panchkula. No doubt, all the aforesaid documents were issued by the Government Authorities, however, there is a settled law that when there are two documents for consideration, the document which is in favour of the complainant shall hold the field. In the case of Secretary Thirumurugan Co-operative Agriculture Credit Society Vs. M.Lalita (2004), SCC 305 and LIC of India and Another Vs. Hira Lal IV (2011) CPJ 4(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the consumer are always in a week position and in case where two interpretation are possible, the one beneficial to the consumer needs to be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dnyanraj & Others SLP (c) 10391/2022 has held that:- crop insurance not like commercial policy and directed the insurer to compensate Farmers for Harvesting Loss.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that complainant is entitled to get the compensation for loss of his paddy crop as per Annexure C-5, wherein, it is mentioned that due to hailstorm the loss to the paddy crop, in Kharif Season-2018, in the village Dhanora, H.B. No.187  was to the extent of 88%. As such, complainant is entitled to get the claim amount for the paddy crop sown in the village Dhanora, H.B. No.187 to the tune of Rs.2,27,026/-/-  (Rs.2,57,985/- i.e. sum assured X 88% i.e. loss of the paddy crop). The insurance company/OP No.4 is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.
16.           From the record it is borne out that the OPs No.1 and 2 did the needful while performing their duty. Even otherwise, neither any specific allegation has been levelled by the complainant against the OPs No.1 & 2, nor proved against them. Similarly, no deficiency in providing any service on the part of OP No.3 stood proved by the complainant. Thus, the present complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs No.1 to 3 is liable to be dismissed.
17.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OPs No.1 to 3 and allow the same against OP No.4-Insurance Company and direct it, in the following manner:-

1. To pay Rs.2,27,026/-, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 5% per annum  from 03.02.2020 onwards.    
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.20,00/- as litigation expenses.

                  The OP No.4 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 02.11.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President