BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 262 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 11.10.2021.
Date of Decision : 15.10.2024.
Ashok Kumar, aged about 42 years son of Sh. Krishan Lal, resident of H. No. 392, Housing Board Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. IDBI Bank, Branch Sirsa, District Sirsa Haryana through its Branch Manager.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company, through its Branch Manager, Plate B & C, 5th Floor, Block 1, East Kidwai Nagar, Opp. AIIMS Gate 2, New Felhi 110023.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Amit Kumar Soni, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 initially against IDBI Bank and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and thereafter on the application of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., it was deleted from array of ops and Agriculture Insurance Company was impleaded as op no.2.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a farmer and is having Kissan Credit card account with op no.1 bearing account no. 0195651100000639/3330743 and has mortgaged his land situated at village Peerkhera, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa with op no.1. As per crop insurance scheme, the complainant got insured his cotton crop of year 2020-2021 for which premium amount of Rs.3017.88 was deducted from his account and was paid to insurance company. It is further averred that said cotton crop of complainant was completely damaged due to white fly, heavy rain and natural calamity but complainant did not receive any claim from any of ops whereas other co-sharers have received claim and complainant came to know that ops wrongly mentioned about paddy crop instead of cotton crop despite the fact that no paddy crop is sown in his land and complainant has never moved any application for change of crop. The official of the bank itself changed the nature of crop in their records due to which complainant has suffered financial loss and ops have also caused unnecessary harassment to him. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement and also amended written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has applied to the answering op for providing him financial assistance of Rs.3,00,000/- as KCC limit vide application dated 20.02.2012. He had proposed in his application that he will sow crop of paddy in the Kharif season. If he has changed the crop then it was his duty to inform the op. It is further submitted that complainant has proposed his crop for Kharif as paddy and accordingly op no.1 has paid the premium of Rs.3017.54 to agriculture insurance company for insurance of proposed crop and after acceptance of premium the matter of claim etc. is between the insurance company and farmer because insurance company has not raised any objection as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. Notification dated 30.03.2018 and has also not refunded premium amount. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. On being impleaded and on notice, op no.2 Agriculture Insurance Company appeared and filed written version submitting therein that op no.1 bank uploaded the coverage details of complainant as paddy crop in the land situated in village Ahmadpur (149) Block Sirsa, District Sirsa and accordingly answering op has considered the coverage details of the complainant as uploaded by the op bank in the NCI portal. It is further submitted that as there was no shortfall in the actual crop i.e. yield of paddy crop of complainant in the notified village Ahmadpur (149) Block Sirsa, District Sirsa during the Kharif 2020 season, therefore, no area approach claim became payable and so the complainant is not entitled to any claim. It is further submitted that only op no.1 bank is liable for the above said mistake as per operational guidelines of PMFBY and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Annexures C1 to C3.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Rahul Thakur, Branch Manager as Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Geddam Gandhi Raju, Regional Manager as Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R13.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. The complainant is claiming insurance claim for the damage of his insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 in his land situated in village Peer Khera District Sirsa. However, the op no.1 bank has placed on file application of complainant for availing KCC facility as Ex.R1 in which complainant at the time of availing loan facility from op no.1 bank declared that he will sow paddy crop in Kharif season and therefore, at the viability of paddy crop the op no.1 bank sanctioned KCC loan to the complainant. The complainant has not placed on file any application moved to the op no.1 bank regarding change of pattern crop i.e. from paddy to cotton and as such op no.1 bank uploaded the crop of complainant as paddy of Kharif, 2020 on the portal for insurance of said crop and as such op no.1 bank is not at fault. It is a common known fact that loan for more amount is sanctioned for paddy crop instead of cotton crop and as such complainant for obtaining more loan amount from op no.1 bank declared that he will sow paddy crop in Kharif season and as such now he is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct because he has not moved any application to the op no.1 bank regarding change of pattern of crop. Moreover, complainant has not proved on record through any cogent and convincing evidence about loss of his alleged cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 because he has not placed on file any loss report of agriculture department or any other agency in this regard. As such complaint deserves to be dismissed.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed 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. Member President,
Dated: 15.10.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
