BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 36 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 16.01.2020.
Date of Decision : 07.11.2024.
Surjeet Singh aged about 50 years son of Shri Ram Partap, resident of village Raipur Rupas, Tehsil and District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Near Market Committee, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. K.R. Pilania, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
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 the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist and is having about six acres of land situated at village Raipur Rupas, Tehsil and District Sirsa. He has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on his above said land through account number 5020008722233. That as per crop insurance scheme, the op no.1 deducted premium amount of Rs.3312/- and Rs.4880.40 from the above account of complainant on 16.07.2018 for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 and op no.1 got insured his crop from op no.2. It is further averred that complainant had sown cotton and paddy crop in Kharif, 2018 and in his village the cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 including his cotton crop was damaged on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and as such complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per acre. That complainant approached the ops and requested for the claim of damage to his crop but on all the occasions the ops asked him to wait whereas some of the villagers have already received compensation within a year and as such ops have caused deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.3312/- for cotton and Rs.4880/- for paddy of Kharif, 2018 debited in the account of complainant on 16.07.2018 was transferred to op no.2 insurance company for insurance of kharif crops of complainant as proposed by him in his loan application. The op no.2 has not raised any objection as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018 and accepted the premium for insurance of crops of complainant and as such op no.2 insurance company is liable to compensate the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that no premium for crop of complainant of village Raipur Rupas was ever remitted to the answering op. As the account particulars are not uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal by the Nodal Bank i.e. HDFC Bank, the crop of complainant was not insured with answering op. It is further submitted that farmers whose crops were insured with answering op had been paid the compensation for the loss of their crops. As the HDFC Bank has failed to upload the account particulars of complainant, the crops of complainant could not be insured and thus only op no.1 is negligent in service qua the complainant and is liable to pay compensation to the complainant, if any. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and also placed on file affidavit of Smt. Pala Devi wife of Sh. Balwant Singh.
6. On the other hand, Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Puja Tapwal, Incharge Legal Hub as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex. RW1/A and statement of account Ex.R4.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. The complainant in order to prove the fact that he is having land in village Raipur and in order to prove loss to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in his land situated in village Raipur has placed on file copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 as Ex.C7 and report/ letter of Deputy Director Agriculture department Sirsa as Ex.C9. According to said report Ex.C9, the average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in village Raipur was 389.86 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta was 561.06 kgs. per hectare. So, as per this report Ex.C9, there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2018 as per operational guidelines of PMFBY. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in 2018 was Rs.72,000/- per hectare. From the document of the bank Ex.C4 i.e. particulars of the complainant, it is evident that premium amount was deducted by op no.1 bank for insurance of cotton crop of complainant in his 5.69 acres of land in village Raipur. So, as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.50,500/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in his said 5.69 acres of land. It is the specific plea of op no.1 that no premium for crop of complainant of village Raipur Rupas was ever remitted to answering op by op no.1 bank and the account particulars were not uploaded on the portal by op no.1 bank. In this regard on the particulars document of the bank Ex.C4 pertaining to the complainant forwarded to op no.2, the op no.2 insurance company has written that they have verified the portal entry of said account number and it does not show any entry and kindly check at their end and also update them. The op no.1 bank has failed to prove on record through any cogent and convincing evidence that entry was made on the portal and even has failed to prove on record that premium amount deducted from the account of complainant was paid to op no.2 for insurance of cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 and as such op no.1 bank is liable to pay the said claim amount to the complainant. In this regard Clause 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY stipulates that in cases where farmers are denied crop insurance due to incorrect/ partial/ non-uploading of their details on Portal, concerned Banks/ Intermediaries shall be responsible for payment of claims (if any). So, in the present case also as mentioned above, the op no.1 bank is liable to pay the claim amount of Rs.50,500/- to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop in kharif, 2018 in his land.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 bank and direct op no.1 to pay the claim amount of Rs.50,500/- 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.50,500/- from op no.1 bank alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. 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 stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.2 insurance company 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: 07.11.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
