BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 133 of 2019
Date of Institution : 13.03.2019.
Date of Decision : 08.01.2020.
- Rajesh Kumar, aged 46 years, 2. Ravinder Kumar aged 43 years sons of Shri Rajpal, both residents of village Sherpura, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
- H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, Fatehabad Branch, District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
- Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. G.S. Kashnia, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO on behalf of opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of complainants, in brief, is that complainants in equal shares are owners in possession of 2000/2017 share of land measuring 100 Kanal 17 Marlas (as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) situated within the revenue estate of village Sherpura, Tehsil and District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 reaqd with mutation no.3036. That complainants availed the crop loans from opposite party no.1 bank through their accounts No.50200021782224 and 50200021782010 and share of complainants in the above land was mortgaged with op no.1. The op no.1 got insured the crop of complainant for which op no.1 deducted the amount of premium of Rs.3474/- each from the above said loan accounts of complainants on 31.7.2017. It is further averred that as per Govt. notification, after introduction of crop insurance scheme, every farmer was informed by the concerned bank to give the details of t heir crops for the season, so that crop can be insured against the various natural calamities and accordingly, the complainants briefed the crop for the Kharif season of 2017 to op no.2 as having crop of cotton. A copy of girdawari was also provided by the complainants to op no.1 bank according to which, op no.1 deducted a sum of Rs.3474/- as premium for said crop insurance from each account of complainants on 31.7.2017 and remitted the same to the insurance company, the particulars of which are to be disclosed by op no.1 bank as op no.1 did not supply the copy of insurance policy and policy number etc. to the complainants. It is further averred that said cotton crop of complainants of Kharif 2017 was destroyed due to climatic conditions. The Agriculture Department conducted survey of the fields of village Sherpura and submitted report to op no.1 and insurance company. The insurance company thereafter settled the claim of other farmers as well as neighbourers of complainants’ field and also paid insurance claim to farmers of village Sherpura at the rate of Rs.7500/- per acre but very strangely left the complainants and did not pay any amount to them as compensation qua insurance claim. It is further averred that complainants contacted the officers of op no.1 and inquired about non payment of their insurance claim for damaged crop, whereupon complainants were told that only paddy crop had been got insured by op no.1 bank and thus, no compensation for cotton crop can be paid. The complainants were highly surprised to hear this because they had categorically informed the op no.1 bank that they had sown cotton crops in their aforesaid land. In this manner, the complainants due to gross negligence, deficient and careless act and conduct of op no.1 could not get compensation whereas they are legally entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.7500/- per acre from ops. That complainants approached the ops and requested them to admit their claim but they did not pay any heed and have refused to do so a week back. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 did not file any written statement despite availing several opportunities and as such defence of op no.1 was struck of.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.2 is only liable to conduct crop cutting experiment and also made its report according to CCE and which is prescribed in the operational guidelines issued by the Government of India under PMFBY and it is upto higher authorities as well as insurance company or concerned bank who may decide the same. Remaining contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainants, learned counsel for op no.1 as well as ASO on behalf of op no.2 and have gone through the record carefully.
6. The perusal of the record reveals that complainants in order to prove their complaint have furnished affidavit of Rajesh Kumar complainant as Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. They have also furnished copy of jamabandi Ex.C1, Ex.C2, khasra girdawari Ex.C3 and copies of statements of accounts Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 and copy of letter dated 18.9.2019 Ex.C6. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture as Ex.R1, copy of notification Ex.R2 and copy of village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured as Ex.R3.
7. As per allegations of complainants, they have sought compensation for loss of their cotton crop of kharif 2017 due to natural calamities and further there are allegations that they got their cotton crop insured through op no.1 which deducted amount of premium from their KCC accounts. The complainants have tendered in evidence copies of statements of accounts in order to prove that amount of premium of Rs.3474/- was deducted from their KCC accounts. No doubt, the premium was deducted by the bank from the accounts of complainants which is evident from copy of statements of accounts Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, but however, it reflects that premium was deducted to get crop of paddy of complainants insured meaning thereby that bank never deducted any amount to get cotton crop of complainants insured though complainants have claimed compensation on account of loss of cotton crop which was not got insured by complainants through op no.1.
8. The perusal of evidence of complainants further reveals that complainants have not placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that complainants ever moved any application to op no.1 for correction of their record or gave any intimation regarding change of crop of cotton which was allegedly sown by them in place of paddy for which they had raised loan.
9. In view of above discussion, complainants have failed to prove their allegations in the complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence. As such the complaint of the complainants is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit 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 in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:08.01.2020. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
