BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                Consumer Complaint no. 178 of 2019                                                                

                                                   Date of Institution         :  11.04.2019

                                                Date of Decision   :     10.09.2019

Bhagwan son of Sh. Bhagirath son of Sh. Bhishna, resident of village Ghoranwali, Teh. Rania, Distt. Sirsa (now deceased) through his legal heirs:- (i) Girdwari (widow) aged about 56 years (ii)- Bhim Singh (son) aged about 30 years (iii) Umed Singh (son) aged about 28 years (iv) Rajbala (daughter) aged about 38 years (v) Nirmala Devi (daughter) aged about 36 years (vi) Maya Devi (daughter) aged about 32 years of Bhagwan son of Sh. Bhagirath, all residents of village Ghoranwali, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa.

                                                                    ……Complainants.

                             Versus.

1. ICICI Lombard, Ist Floor, Dharam Satya, State Bank of India (ADB) Branch, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Teh. and Distt. Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.

2. Central Bank of India, Main Bazar Road, Rania, Teh. Rania Distt. Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.

                                                           ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA………………. ……PRESIDENT.    

          SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL……..MEMBER

          MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER.    

Present:       Sh. Anjani Gupta,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite party no.1 given up.

                   Opposite party no.2 exparte.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainants is that they are agriculturists. Sh. Bhagwan son of Sh. Bhagirath has already died and complainants are the legal heirs of deceased Bhagwan. That previously the land measuring 37 kanals 18 marlas detailed in para no.2 was owned and possessed by deceased Bhagwan and after his death, the land in question was inherited by the complainants vide mutation No.1950 dated 15.9.2017. The complainants no.1(i), (iv) to (vi) relinquished their shares in favour of complainants no.1(ii) and (iii), vide mutation No.1996 dated 6.3.2019. The complainants sown cotton crops in May, 2017 in their land. It is further averred that Sh. Bhagwan, the predecessor-in-interest of the complainants raised the crop loan under Kissan Credit Limit facility from op no.2, vide rapat no.1034 TSC dated 5.6.2012 and the limit of his land measuring 37 kanals 18 marlas was Rs.2,90,000/- and as per the policy of the Government, the op no.2 got insured the Narma and Gawar crops with op no.1 for Kharif, 2017 and op no.2 debited a sum of Rs.2054/- on 1.8.2017 in the account of Sh. Bhagwan as crops insurance premium for the sum assured. Thus, the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 was insured by op no.2 with op no.1. It is further averred that said cotton crop of 2017 sown by Bhagwan in his land measuring 37 kanals 18 marlas was destroyed due to climate conditions. The Agriculture Department surveyed the agriculture fields of village Ghoranwali and submitted its report to the ops. The op no.1 thereafter settled the claim of the farmers of village Ghoranwali, but very strangely declined the complainants and few other farmers of village to pay the insurance claim and did not pay any amount to them as compensation qua insurance claim. It is further averred that complainants and other farmers of village Ghoranwali contacted the officers of op no.1 and inquired about non payment of their insurance claim where upon the complainants were told that compensation has been paid to those farmers, who have sown cotton and not to other famers and complainants who have sown paddy crops and not the cotton crops. The complainants assured the officer of op no.1 that they have sown cotton crops and not paddy crops and also assured the op no.1 that in village Ghoranwali, only cotton, Narma, gawar and arand crops are sown and even a single killa is not sown of paddy crops. They also shown khasra girdwari to op no.1 but to no effect rather they stated that op no.2 bank has provided their detail of insurance of paddy crops and not of cotton crop and thereby the op no.1 refused to entertain the claim of complainants. It is further averred that amount of Rs.2054/- was debited for insurance of cotton crop and not of paddy crop and no paddy crop of complainants was ever insured in village Ghoranwali and this is negligence on the part of op no.2 as it has submitted a wrong report to the op no.1 and same led to the losses to the complainants without their fault. That in this manner, both the ops have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainants and thereby have caused loss and unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.  

2.                Opposite party no.1 has been given up by learned counsel for complainant.

3.                Opposite party no.2 did not appear despite notice and was proceeded against exparte.

4.                The complainants then led their evidence.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for complainants and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                The complainants in order to prove their case have furnished affidavit of Sh. Bhim Singh son of Sh. Bhagwan as Ex.CW1/A and have also furnished copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C1, Ex.C2, copy of mutation Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, copy of pass book Ex.C5, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C6, copy of insurance detail Ex.C7, copy of death certificate Ex.C8, copies of adhar cards Ex.C9 to Ex.C15, copy of statement of account Ex.C16. The complainants have also examined Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO Agriculture Department Sirsa, who has proved copy of village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured Ex.C17, copy of report of ASO Ex.C18, copy of assessment Ex.C19 and copy of notification Ex.C20.

7.                Learned counsel for complainants has already given up opposite party no.1 being unnecessary vide his statement dated 21.5.2019 and op no.2 Central Bank of India, branch Rania is already exparte.

8.                It was legal obligation of the complainants to prove that their predecessor-in-interest Bhagwan had sown crop of Kapas during the Khariff 2017 and he had got insured crop of Kapas from the op no.1 insurance company through op no.2. The perusal of the complaint reveals that complainants have averred in para no.3 of the complaint that op no.2 debited a sum of Rs.2054/- from the account of their predecessor-in-interest Bhagwan as crop insurance premium for the sum insured and kapas crop of Khariff 2017 was insured by op no.2 with op no.1. The complainants have relied upon a certificate which is Ex.C7 which reflects the details of the crop insured but this document reveals that it does not bear the seal of the issuing authority and it only bears some initial of the person who issued this certificate. It does not bear date, month and year and also it does not find mention the year of the crop. Moreover, as per this certificate, paddy crop was insured for which a sum of Rs.2053.82 was paid to ICICI Lombard. No reliance can be placed on this document as it does not inspire any confidence. So, it appears from the evidence of complainants that complainants have failed to establish that their predecessor-in-interest Bhagwan had got his cotton crop insured with op no.1 through op no.2.

9.                In view of above discussion, 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 free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.                  

Announced in open Forum.   Member  Member               President,

Dated:10.09.2019.                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                          Redressal Forum, Sirsa