Haryana

Karnal

CC/591/2020

Sushil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manger, SBI General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Hardyal Kamboj

04 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.591 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.21.12.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:04.06.2024

 

1. Sushil Kumar son of Mangat Ram.
2. Manohar Lal son of Mangat Ram.
3. Sandeep Kumar son of Mangat Ram.

All residents of village Modipur Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                   …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

1. Manager, SBI General Insurance Co., SCO no.388-389, 1^st floor, B.D. International, Karan Commercial Complex, Old Mugal Canal, Karnal.
2. Deputy Director, Agriculture, Karnal.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Hardyal Kamboj, counsel for the

    complainant.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Surender Kumar Project Officer, on behalf of

                    OP no.2.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the complainant has 2.292 hectares of agriculture land in village Modipur. Complainant is having a KCC limit account with the Punjab National Bank Ghid. As per the instructions and guidelines of the Government of India, the complainant will have to get his crops insured under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The premium of the said insurance was deducted from the account of complainant every season. The premium of the insurance of Khariff crop 2018, was also deducted from the account of complainant, which is reflected in the bank statement. The yield of the kharif crop 2018 of the complainant had decreased. OP no.2 visited the spot and inspected the crop of complainant and the crop yield was found to be very less and he had also prepared a report regarding the low yield in which compensation was also mentioned. The Agriculture Department and Insurance Company had surveyed the crop of complainant. The insurance company refused to give the compensation for less yield of the crop by saying that the name of the complainant is not insured with them. All the insurance premiums from his account were deducted but while uploading his form, by mistake uploaded his land to be in village Chora Khalsa instead of village Modipur, due to which insurance company has denied to pay the compensation of less yield and the  complainant has suffered huge financial loss. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that no documentary evidence regarding policy particular/application number/claim lodging/surveyor details is mentioned/supplied by the complainant and accordingly the OP is not able to identify the dispute raised by the complainant. In the absence of any application of insurance and other details, OP is unable to trace any information regarding the claim. The bank details of complainant lies with the Banker of complainant and does not in any manner help the OP to trace the dispute/controversy. It is further pleaded that crop insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna which operates on area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as on insurance unit. For all major crops, insurance unit is Gram Panchayat and for minor crops, insurance unit is Taluk. It is further pleaded that Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare is fixed for every insurance unit. Actual yield (AY) kilogram/hectare of an insurance unit is calculated by the government taking samples form respective insurance unit at the time of harvesting of the crop through crop cutting experiments (CCEs) which are conducted by State Government. All the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claims is furnished by the government and accordingly the insurance company only calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Provision of operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna vide clause XI: Assessment of loss/shortfall in yield, sub clause 10: Assessment of Claims (Wide Spread Calamities)

“If ‘Actual Yield’ (AY) per hectare of insured crop for the insurance unit (calculated on basis of requisite number of CCEs) in insured season, falls short of specified “Threshold Yield” (TY), all insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in yield of similar magnitude. PMFBY seeks to provide coverage against such contingency.

‘Claim’ shall be calculated as per the following formula:

(Threshold Yield- Actual Yield)

Threshold yieldX Sum insured.

 

It is further pleaded that complainant has not placed on rcord any assessment report regarding the loss of crop.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 in its reply stated that complainant has 2.292 hectares of agriculture land in village Modipur. Complainant is having a KCC limit account with the Punjab National Bank Ghid. According to complainant he has insured his land with the insurance company through Punjab National Bank and the crop insurance has also been deducted from the account of complainant. Complainant lodged a claim with the OP regarding less yield in his fields. When it was sent to insurance company, the insurance company refused to give the claim by saying that the applicant is not insured with the insurance company in village Modipur. After investigation conducted by the OP, it was found that after deducting the insurance premium from Punjab National Bank Ghid while uploading on the government portal by mistake the farmer’s land was uploaded in village Chaura Khalsa instead of Modipur, due to which the claim amount could not be received. As per Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna corrigendum notification 2979-Agri-II (1)-2018/16760 dated 19.11.2018 point no.19 part (XXV) bank is liable to pay the compensation.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, copy of bank passbook Ex.C2, copy of bank statement Ex.C3, copy of mail dated 08.08.2019 from insurance company Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 13.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nishant Gera Ex.RW1/A and copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 10.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar Project Officer Ex.OP2/A, copy of email dated 08.08.2019  Ex.OP2/1, copy of guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence on 01.06.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned for the parties and representative of OP no.2 and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is maintaining the KCC limit for agriculture loan with the Punjab National Bank. As per the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna complainant was/is entitled for compensation but insurance company has not given the compensation on account of loss in his crop and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.     

10.           Learned counsel for OP no.1 argued that no documentary evidence regarding policy particular details is supplied by the complainant. In the absence of any application of insurance and other details, OP is unable to trace any information regarding the claim. He further argued that all the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claim is furnished by the government and accordingly the insurance company only calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           Representative of OP no.2 submitted that the  complainant is maintaining a KCC limit account with the Punjab National Bank Ghid. Complainant moved an application with regard to less yield and the same was forwarded to the insurance company.

The complainant never asked the OP to constitute a committee for inspection of his fields. Thus, the fields of the complainant never inspected by the Committee and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP no.2.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Admittedly, the complainant is an agriculturist and is possessing agriculture land in village Modipur and the insurance premium was duly deducted from the account of complainant by the bank under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna.

14.           The complainant has alleged that due to less yield of Kharif  crop 2018, complainant was/is entitled for compensation from the insurance company. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant, but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on the file to prove that complainant has suffered a financial loss due to less yield. Further, as per Pradhan Manti Fasal Bima Yojna, no one is entitled for compensation only on the ground of less yield without any cogent reason. It is not a case of complainant his crop was destroyed due to natural disaster and other reason upon which the complainant was/is entitled for compensation as per the abovesaid policy. Only deducting the premium amount does not mean that complainant became entitled for compensation. Furthermore, there is nothing on the file to prove that complainant is the owner of the agriculture land as alleged in the complaint.  Without revenue record, it cannot be ascertained that complainant is the owner in possession of the land. Hence, present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed.

15.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:04.06.2024  

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Suman Singh)

                       Member                               Member