BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 520 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 09.09.2019
Date of Decision : 05.09.2023.
Prithvi Singh aged about 46 years adopted son of Sh. Rameshwar son of Sh. Hari Ram, resident of village Chadiwal, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Janta Bhawan, New Anaj Mandi, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Bank, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………..MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anjani Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present against the opposite parties (herein after referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the damage of his cotton and guar crops of Kharif, 2018.
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist having land measuring 67 kanals 4 marlas i.e. 29 kanals 12 marlas being 1/2 share of land measuring 59 kanals 4 marlas situated in village Chadiwal, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa and also land measuring 37 kanals 12 marlas being 1/2 share of land measuring 75 kanals 4 marlas ( as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) situated in village Ali Mohammad, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017. The complainant had sown cotton and guar crops in Kharif, 2018 season. It is further averred that complainant availed crop loan of the amount of Rs.22,29,000/- under Kisan Credit Limit facility from op no.2 by mortgaging his above said total land measuring 67 kanals 4 marlas and as per policy of the Government, the op no.2 got insured cotton and guar crops of Kharif, 2018 with op no.2 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. In this regard op no.2 deducted premium amount of Rs.9792/- on 31.07.2018 from the account of complainant and thus his above said crops was insured with op no.1. It is further averred that said cotton and guar crops of 2018 of complainant in his above said land was destroyed due to climate conditions. The op no.3 got conducted survey of fields of villages Chadiwal and Ali Mohammad and submitted its report to ops no.1 and 2 and thereafter op no.1 settled the claim of farmers of village Chadiwal and Ali Mohammad but strangely declined the complainant and few other farmers of village Chadiwal to pay any insurance claim and ops no.1 and 2 have refused to entertaint the claim of complainant. That in this manner, ops have committed gross deficiency in services towards complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment. The complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs.2,40,000/- as well as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses from ops. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op did not receive any premium against this very account number, name of farmer and land mentioned and referred by complainant. However, if bank had failed to pay the premium of insurance for getting the coverage of insurance of crop of complainant of said village, in that eventuality, answering op cannot be held liable to make payment of any damages, compensation to the complainant. It is further submitted that in case of failure to get the insurance coverage got done by the banker by ensuring the payment of premium with correct data, detail record about name of farmer, crop, village etc. as per operational guidelines on the portal meant for this purpose, wherefrom the record is taken by insurance company and coverage is done, then only bank is liable. On the portal there is no entry of coverage against the account number of complainant through the op bank regarding the crop mentioned in the complaint and answering op is not insurer. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version. It is submitted that at the time of advancement of loan to the complainant by answering op, the complainant had declared the pattern of crop for his land as paddy-wheat. The complainant had never informed the bank regarding the change of the pattern of the crop. The bank has debited the amount of Rs.9792/- from the account of complainant and has credited the same to the account of op no.1 as premium of insurance. All the information required by op no.1 was sent to insurance company as per rules. As such as per scheme of Govt, the crop in the land was insured with insurance company op no.1. Remaining contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. Op no.3 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.3 is only liable to conduct crop cutting experience which is prescribed in the operational guidelines of PMFBY. 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 answering op within specific time period.. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.
7. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Puja, Incharge Legal HUB as Ex.R1 and operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R2. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R4 and documents Ex.R5 and Ex.R6. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sourabh Mehta, Assistant Manager as Ex.R7 and documents Ex.R8 to Ex.R10.
8. 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.
9. The complainant has claimed insurance claim for the damage of his cotton and guar crop of kharif, 2018. Though op no.2 bank has claimed that complainant had declared pattern of his crop as paddy and wheat but however, from the copy of statement of account of complainant placed on file by complainant as Ex.C6 as well as placed on file by op no.2 bank as Ex.R8, it is evident that on 31.07.2018 an amount of Rs.9792/- was deducted by op no.2 bank from the account of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop only of Kharif, 2018. Although op no.1 insurance company has also pleaded that it did not receive any premium amount for insurance of crop of complainant of kharif, 2018 but same is not proved on record by op no.1 insurance company through any cogent and convincing evidence whereas op no.2 bank has placed on file detail premium sent to insurance company as Ex.R9 in which it is mentioned that premium amount was remitted to op no.1 insurance company on 14.8.2018 through NEFT number N226180610002618. So, it is proved on record that premium amount was paid to op no.1 insurance company for insurance of kharif crop of 2018 of complainant.
10. Now we have to see that whether complainant has proved on record that there was any loss to his above said cotton and guar crop in kharif, 2018 in villages Chadiwal and Ali Mohammad or not? The complainant in order to prove this fact has placed on file report of the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.C9 in which it is reported that the average yield of cotton in village Alimhammad in Kharif, 2018 was 294.10 Kgs. per hectare and average yield of cotton crop in village Chadiwal in Kharif, 2018 was 272.48 Kgs. per hectare. From the said letter/ report dated 18.08.2021 Ex.C9, it is evident that complainant has sought report of average yield of kharif crop of 2017 and 2018 and has not sought threshold yield of block. There is no report on file regarding threshold yield of cotton crop of kharif, 2018 of block Nathusari Chopta and in absence of threshold yield of block of villages Chadiwal and Ali Mohammad, it cannot be said that above said yield was less and complainant has suffered loss of cotton crop in kharif, 2018 in his above said villages because for assessing loss, the average yield is compared to the threshold yield and average yield should be less than threshold yield. So, complainant has failed to prove on record that there was loss to his cotton crop in kharif, 2018. Further complainant has also failed to prove damage to his guar crop in kharif, 2018 as complainant has also not placed on file any report of agriculture department regarding loss of his guar crop of kharif 2018. The village wise tabulation sheet regarding claim produced by complainant as Ex.C11 is of Kharif, 2017 and not of Kharif, 2018 and moreover no villages name of complainant are mentioned in the same. In absence of any valid proof regarding loss of his cotton and guar crop, none of the opposite parties can be held deficient in service and cannot be directed to pay any compensation to the complainant. So, complainant has failed to prove his case.
11. 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 after due compliance.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 05.09.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
