BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 449 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 08.08.2019.
Date of Decision : 14.06.2023.
Darshan Lal, aged about 52 years son of Shri Devi Lal, resident of village Chautala, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. Mobile No. 94166-19433.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. 4th Floor, the Statement Building, Plot No. 149, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh- 160002 through its Manager.
2. Oriental Bank of Commerce, branch near Railway Crossing, Mandi Dabwali, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
...…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. Parvinder Gaba, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist having his land in village Chautala, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 and is wholly dependent upon agricultural income in all respects. He is having his account bearing No. 02705115002509 with op no.2. That on 31.07.2017 premium amount of Rs.13,800/- was deducted by op no.2 for insurance of his crop of Kharif, 2017 with op no.1 as per Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna. It is further averred that complainant sown crop of cotton in about 26 acres of his land in the year 2017 which was damaged due to disaster of white bees and other natural calamities and as such complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs.7,80,000/- approximately at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre. That complainant requested the ops repeatedly to release the insurance claim but all in vain and ops have flatly refused to admit the claim of complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that no intimation ever received regarding the loss of crop from the complainant as well as any other agencies. However, the claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss occurred due to Rains but the same is not leading to Inundation which is covered for loss under the scheme and complainant has made a false, bogus and baseless story just to grab the compensation. It is further submitted that it is not an individual insurance policy like other insurance policies rather it is a group insurance scheme in accordance with agreed terms and conditions of scheme which are binding on all of concerned related to the scheme. The complainant should have approached to DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and the decision of said department would be binding on all state Government/ Insurance Company/ Banks and farmers but instead of this, complainant has approached this Commission by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 filed written version raising preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op has transferred the amount of insurance premium for the crops of complainant to op no.1, hence, it is the op no.1 who has to indemnify the complainant. The op no.2 has not charged any penny for himself, hence there is no liability of answering op to pay any compensation on account of loss etc. of his crops. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
4. Op no.3 also filed its written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or survey of loss of crop is to be prepared by the op no.3 and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of answering op in this regard. The 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 the operational guidelines of the Government of India. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. khasra girdawari Ex.C1, jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C2, Aksh-shijra Ex.C3, insurance particulars Ex.C4, again jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C5, pass book Ex.C6 and complaint made to Managing Director/ CEO Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon Ex.C7, letter of the bank and information supplied by the bank to the complainant under RTI Act as Ex.C8 and Ex.C9.
6. On the other hand, op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R1, Haryana Govt. Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department notification dated 13.06.2017 Ex.R2 and village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during Kharif, 2017 Ex.R3.
7. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Hemant Rautela, Branch Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R4.
8. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.3 and have gone through the case file carefully.
10. The complainant has claimed insurance claim amount of Rs.7,80,000/- for the damage of his insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 sown in about 26 acres of agricultural land situated in village Chautala, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre. It is proved on record from the statement of account of the complainant Ex.C6 that on 31.07.2017, an amount of Rs.13,800/- was deducted by op no.2 bank for insurance of his above said cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and was paid to op no.1 insurance company and as such his cotton crop was insured with op no.1. The op no.3 agriculture department who is to conduct survey of the damage of the crops of the farmers has placed on file document Annexure A regarding threshold yield alongwith Haryana Govt. notification dated 13.06.2017 Ex.R2 which reveals that the threshold yield of cotton crop of 2017 of block Dabwali in which village of complainant Chautala falls was 628.02 Kgs. per hectare and as per village wise tabulation sheet Ex.R3, the average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of village Chautala was 175.89 Kgs. per hectare. So, as per guidelines of PMFBY, as the average yield of cotton crop of village Chautala was less than threshold yield of block Dabwali, so there was loss of cotton crop in village Chautala in 2017. Therefore, it is also proved on record that there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in kharif, 2017.
11. Now we assess the amount of loss of complainant for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2017. The complainant has claimed that he sown cotton crop in about 26 acres of land. However, the op no.2 bank deducted premium amount of Rs.13,800/- from the account of complainant for insuring his cotton crop in 24.75 acres of land, so the claim is to be calculated for loss of his cotton crop in 24.75 acres of land which is equal to 10.02 hectares of land. A formula has also been given in operational guidelines of PMFBY for calculation of loss of crop which is as under:-
Threshold yield minus average yield
_____________________________ X Sum insured X Area
Threshold yield
12. The claim of the complainant is to be calculated for loss of his cotton crop in 10.02 hectares of land. As such as per above said formula, the claim payable to the complainant comes to Rs.4,97,745/-. The complainant has also given in writing to the bank on the insurance particulars document Ex.C4 that he has received amount of Rs.10556.85 as claim amount for the loss of his cotton crop of 2017 and claimed remaining claim amount but however, it is also proved on record that actually an amount of Rs.100556.85 (not Rs.10556.85) has already been paid to the complainant as claim amount for the loss of his cotton crop in 2017 as is evident from copy of statement of account placed on file during the course of arguments. So, the complainant is entitled to remaining claim amount of Rs.3,97,188.15 after deduction of the above said amount of Rs.100556.85 from above said amount of Rs.4,97,745/- and op no.1 insurance company is only liable to pay the said amount to the complainant. However, no liability of remaining ops i.e. op no.2 bank and agriculture department op no.3 is made.
13. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint against opposite party no.1 insurance company and direct the op no.1 to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,97,188.15 (in round figure Rs.3,97,200/-) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be liable to receive the amount of Rs.3,97,200/- from op no.1 alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op no.1 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However complaint against ops no.2 and 3 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: 14.06.2023. District Consumer Disputes
JK Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
