BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 691 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 28.11.2019.
Date of Decision : 12.04.2023.
Abhay Singh aged about 40 years son of Shri Dharampal, resident of village Nirban, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank Ltd. Sangwan Chowk, Circular Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Near Market Committee, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Divisional Manager.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture, Agriculture Department, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR……………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………………..MEMBER
Argued by: Sh. K.R. Pilania, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, 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 the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as after amendment 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 having 34 acres of agricultural land in village Nirban, Tehsil and District Sirsa jointly owned and possessed by him alongwith his family members. That complainant has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on his above agricultural land from joint account No. 50200020270202. It is further averred that op no.1 bank had deducted amount of premium from the above joint account of complainant for insurance of wheat crop of Rabi 2017-2018 under the Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. That crop of Rabi 2017-2018 was damaged in village Nirban District Sirsa on account of natural calamities and he was awarded the compensation of the damaged crops by the ops for his 13.52 hectare of land. That similarly for the crops of Kharif, 2018 the op no.1 bank had also deducted a sum of Rs.19,468/- as premium from the above joint account of complainant on 2.7.2018 for insurance of his cotton crop in 13.52 hectare of land and said amount of insurance premium was transferred to op no.2 and as such op no.2 is the insurer of the crop. The op no.3 being Agriculture Department assesses the loss of damages to the crops of the farmers. It is further averred that op no.1 did not supply the copy of insurance policy to the complainant. That crop of Kharif, 2018 in village Nirban including crop of complainant was destroyed on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and op no.3 has assessed the loss of damages on the average yield basis and as per provisions and guidelines provided to the department i.e. at the rate of Rs.25,960/- per hectare and the farmers were awarded compensation. It is further averred that surprisingly the complainant was awarded only a sum of Rs.1,29,799.49 whereas per the assessment, the complainant was entitled to about Rs.3,50,979/- calculated at the rate of Rs.25960/- per hectare. In this manner, the ops had awarded less amount to the complainant which is totally against the assessment made by op no.3. That in this regard complainant approached the ops and requested to make the payment of the deficit compensation but the ops kept on avoiding the request of complainant on one false pretext or the other and ultimately on 26.07.2019 the complainant got issued a legal notice to op no.2. That op no.2 gave evasive and vague reply to the same on 13.08.2019 and admitted that an amount of Rs.91,378/- is approved and sanctioned to be paid to the complainant qua the compensation on account of damages to his crops. It is further averred that this amount so approved and sanctioned by op no.2 including the amount already paid to the complainant is only with regard to the compensation of damages to the crops of complainant in 8.52 hectare of land whereas the premium was deducted from his account for his entire 13.52 hectare of land and ops were/ are bound to pay the compensation qua his entire 13.52 hectare of land. That such act and conduct on the part of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint seeking payment of remaining amount of compensation of about Rs.2,21,178/- alongwith interest besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no consumer dispute, suppression of true and material facts and that land mentioned in the complaint is a joint cultivation land by complainant and other family member and complainant has not impleaded the other co-sharer in the complaint nor got any permission from this Commission for filing the complaint. On merits, it is submitted that amount of premium has been debited in the account of borrower regarding their mortgage land and the premium has been paid to op no.2 for insurance of crop of such mortgaged land. It is further submitted that complainant was entitled for loss to the crops in mortgaged land and that matter of payment of compensation for any damages to the crop of complainant is between the complainant and op no.2. That op no.2 has obtained the premium for insurance of crops of complainant, hence it was their duty to provide the copy of insurance policy to the complainant and it was the duty of complainant to call the officials of op no.2 at the time of assessment of loss to his crops. The amount of Rs.1,29,799.49 has been credited in the account of complainant on 10.05.2019. Remaining contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 filed written statement and took certain preliminary objections that present complaint is without any cause of action against answering op as amount of Rs.1,29,000/- and Rs.91,378/- has been paid as per yield loss assessment of loss made available to answering op. After the survey, whatever was legally payable has been paid. That complaint is not maintainable as complainant failed to produce the record on which basis he is asserting his claim against the answering op insurance company, hence complaint is liable to be dismissed. The land is jointly owned and possessed by all the co-sharers. There is no cultivation on specific area, which suffered damages, but amount whatever was payable, admission according to record supplied to answering op has been paid and nothing is due according to the record available with answering op. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service in any manner on the part of company or its officials as yield loss as assessed by competent authority as per yield loss, assessment of loss made available to answering op after the survey has been paid, hence complaint is liable to be dismissed against answering op. That complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and complaint is not maintainable as complainant failed to comply with the guidelines, term and conditions on which basis he has submitted this claim as according to operational guidelines of PMFBY, complainant should have approached the Grievance Committee, if he was agreed with the decision of less payment to him and complaint is pre mature and is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that according to Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna operational guidelines, insurance coverage will be strictly to be equallent to sum insured/ hectare with certain enclosures subject to compliance of term and conditions referred and mentioned in the operational guidelines, which is the foundation of contract of insurance and indemnification is accordingly.
5. On merits, it is submitted that no record of land, KCC facility, crop etc. has been placed on record and so supplied to answering op. Neither bank nor complainant has produced the record relating to availing KCC facility and owing, possession of 13.52 hectare of land. It is further submitted that deduction of amount of premium for 13.52 hectare of land by bank is denied for want of knowledge. That whatever insured crop of complainant was under the coverage of insurance, after receipt of assessment, yield record payment has been made and this was stated in the reply sent by company to the notice given by complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. Op no.3 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op is liable only to conduct the CCE’s experiments and however, yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by the answering op within specific time period as prescribed in operational guidelines of the Government of India. Remaining contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
7. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Sant Lal as Ex.C1 and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12.
8. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R1 and copies of documents Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.
9. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex. RW1 and statement of account Ex.R1. Op no.2 has also tendered affidavit of Ms. Puja Incharge Legal HUB as Ex.R1 (wrongly exhibited as Ex.R1 as already exhibited) and copies of documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA on behalf of op no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.
11. The complainant has claimed claim amount for the loss of his insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 at the rate of Rs.25,960/- per hectare. According to complainant, he has received only an amount of Rs.1,29,799.49 whereas as per the assessment, he was entitled to receive amount of Rs.3,50,979/- calculated at the rate of Rs.25,960/- for 13.52 hectare of land. However, no such record has been placed on file by complainant in order to establish the loss suffered by complainant to the extent of Rs.3,50,979/- due to loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018. The complainant has also not placed on record any loss assessment report or record regarding assessment of claim at the rate of Rs.25,960/- per hectare. Further more, complainant has also not placed on record any report of average yield as well as threshold yield and as such loss of complainant cannot be ascertained for want of evidence. Since op no.2 insurance company has also stated that payment of Rs.1,29,000/- and Rs.91,378/- has already been made to the complainant and there is admission on behalf of complainant regarding receiving of the amount of Rs.1,29,000/- and also there is no denial of the fact on behalf of complainant in his affidavit Ex. CW1/A that he has not received another amount of Rs.91,378/- from op no.2, therefore, we are of the considered view that as payment of above said amounts of Rs.1,29,000/- and Rs.91,378/- has already been made to the complainant by op no.2 insurance company as per yield loss, assessment of loss, the complainant is not found entitled to any other amount from any of the ops including op no.2 insurance company. So, the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal.
12. In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President
Dt. 12.04.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
