BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 604 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 09.10.2019.
Date of Decision : 29.03.2023.
Radha Krishan son of Shri Aad Ram, resident of village Chakkan, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Oriental Insurance Company, Janta Bhawan Road, Anaj Mandi, Sirsa.
2. State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, Branch Rania, District Sirsa, Haryana.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Mukesh Arya, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018.
2. The brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist and owns 23 kanals of agricultural land in the revenue estate of village Chakkan, District Sirsa. He is also having his kisan credit account with op no.2 bank bearing No. 34979350438. That on 28.07.2018 op no.2 bank has deducted premium amount of Rs.1829/- from the aforesaid account of complainant for insurance of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainant of 2018 was damaged and other farmers of his village have received insurance claim at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per acre but the complainant did not receive any amount. That complainant is wholly dependent on agricultural income and complainant approached the ops a number of times to pay the insurance claim but all in vain. It is further averred that complainant was surprised to know that to evade to pay the claim to the complainant, the premium was deposited back for the aforesaid insured crop on 26.06.2019 which is illegal and unjustifiable because as per the rules, the insurance company cannot deposit back the premium after completion of two months of depositing the premium but premium amount has been refunded after a period of 11 months. The complainant is entitled to claim amount of Rs.36,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per acre alongwith interest and is also entitled to compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- for harassment and is also entitled to litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding objective of scheme, coverage of farmers, coverage of crops, general exclusions, not maintainability for want of jurisdiction, non intimation, non submission of proof of loss or weather report, limited coverage as per scheme, yield basis claims are decided by Government, no survey no quantification of loss, no privity of contract and non impleading of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that had the premium been deducted from the account of the complainant his crop would have been insured and his account particulars for the purpose of insurance would have been uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal of PMFBY by the nodal bank but his account particulars are not uploaded on the portal. Thus, the crop of complainant was not insured with answering op. It is further submitted that no premium for crop of complainant of village Chakkan was ever remitted to answering op and crop of complainant was not insured with op no.1, therefore, op no.1 is not liable to pay any claim amount and compensation to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version taking certain preliminary objections regarding non serving prior notice, estoppal, maintainability, cause of action, concealment of true and material facts, jurisdiction, complaint is hopelessly time barred and non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that as per Govt. of India guidelines the above said scheme emphasizes that aadhar number is made mandatory under the DBT scheme. The terms and conditions of this scheme had also been published in local newspapers as well as in media by the Govt. of India as well as by the banks. It is further submitted that complainant was asked time and again in black and white by the answering op to submit his adhar card up to 31.07.2017 to enable the op bank to get his crops under insurance coverage but the complainant has failed to supply the same well in time. However, the answering op applied to the op no.1 for the insurance of the crops of complainant and has also sent the amount of premium for insurance of the crops amounting to Rs.1829/- which was deducted from the account of complainant on 28.07.2018. It is further averred that at the time of advancement of loan, the complainant had declared his crops to be sown i.e. cotton crop in June-July and November, Paddy June-October and wheat November-April. Accordingly, the answering op has applied for insurance of the declared crops of the complainant. It is further submitted that as per norms of the insurance scheme, the op no.1 was required to verify the data of insured farmer pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number etc. on its own cost within two months of the cut off date and in case of any correction must report to the State Government, failing which it will be binding on the insurance company to pay the claim. That op no.1 kept mum after receiving the amount of premium and it is only on 20.06.2019 the insurance company has refunded the amount of premium of Rs.1829/- to the answering op which was later on credited to the account of complainant by answering op. Hence, insurance company has itself violated the terms and conditions of insurance scheme. Remaining contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex. C1, khasra girdawari for the year 2018-2019 Ex.C2, his pass book Ex. C2, adhar card Ex.C4, letter of Public Information Officer cum Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa Ex.C5 with report received under RTI Ex. C5.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms. Puja, Incharge as Ex. R1 and copies of relevant clauses of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R2 to Ex.R6.
7. OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Manager as Ex.R7 and copies of documents i.e. statement of account Ex. R8, transactions statement Ex.R9 and assessment form for short term loan Ex.R10.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. Admittedly, on 28.07.2018 the premium amount of Rs.1829/- was debited from the loan account of complainant for insuring the Kharif crop of 2018 of complainant by op no.2 bank as per requirement of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and according to op no.2 bank said premium amount was remitted to op no.1 insurance company for insurance of kharif crop of complainant of 2018. It is also proved on record that above said amount of Rs.1829/- i.e. premium amount was reversed back in the account of complainant on 20.06.2019.
10. Now the prime question arises for consideration that whether complainant has proved on record that there was any loss to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 or not? The complainant has alleged damage to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in 23 kanals of land but however, complainant has not placed on file any report of Agriculture Department etc. about the loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 of the complainant. Though complainant has alleged that other farmers of his village have already received insurance claim for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 but complainant has not placed on file any proof in this regard. He has not placed on file copy of pass book/ statement of account of even a single farmer of his village in this regard to show that said farmer has received insurance claim for the damage of his crop of Kharif, 2018. Further the complainant has alleged loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 but he has placed on file report of Agriculture department Sirsa about the loss of Kharif crop of 2020. There is no other document on file to prove the loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 of complainant. So the complainant has failed to prove on record any loss to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 and as such complainant is not entitled to any insurance claim for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 from any of the opposite parties. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal for want of evidence regarding damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018.
11. In view of our above discussion, we find no 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 Member President,
Dated: 29.03.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
