BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 645 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 13.11.2019.
Date of Decision : 12.09.2023.
Harsh Kumar aged about 38 years son of Shri Laxman Dass, resident of H. No. 266, Near Premi Properties, Gali No.14, Preet Nagar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Oriental Bank of Commerce, CDLU Branch, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, the Statement Building, Plot No. 149, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Next to Homtal Hotel, Chandigarh- 16000 through its Director.
3. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa.
...…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
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR …………………MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Vikas Kharian, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Dipesh Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party No.3.
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, 2017.
2. The complainant has alleged that he is an agricultural having about 13 acres of agricultural land comprised in Khewat Nos. 93 and 94 situated in village Mehnakhera, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018. That complainant has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on his above said land through account no. 15175111001177. It is further averred that for insurance of his cotton crop of kharif, 2017 as per Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, the op no.1 bank deducted amount of Rs.5753/- from the account of complainant on 31.07.2017 and op no.1 got insured the crop from op no.2, however, insurance policy was not supplied to him. It is further averred that cotton crop of his village of Kharif, 2017 including cotton crop of complainant was damaged on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and as such complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tuen of Rs.25,000/- per acre. That complainant approached the ops and requested them to pay compensation for the damage to his crop but on all the occasions they asked him to wait as process of claims take some time whereas some of the villagers have already received compensation in the month of December, 2018. It is further averred that thereafter officials of op no.1 surprisingly told him that his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 has not been insured despite deduction of the insurance premium. The op no.1 verbally told that amount of premium was transferred to op no.2 and it is the fault of op no.2 regarding non insurance whereas op no.2 is stating that it is the fault of op no.1 and as such both the ops in collusion with each other have deliberately done so for causing loss to the complainant. That complainant also got issued a legal notice to the ops on 19.03.2019 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op debited the insurance premium amount in the loan account of complainant and furnished the particulars of the land and crop of complainant to the insurance company op no.2. The insurance premium deducted from the account of complainant as well as other loanee farmers total amounting to Rs.2,63,186/- was remitted to op no.2 in its bank account through NEFT on 31.07.2017 vide transaction no. SAA46455496 dated 31.7.2017. It is further submitted that insurance policy is issued by insurance company and not by answering op and insurance claim was to be paid by insurance company and answering op has nothing to do with the same. 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 raising preliminary objections that as per complaint loss of cotton crop has been alleged but no claim under the given policy number has been intimated to op no.2 and present complaint is therefore premature and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers. If any mistake is done by bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount and, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. Other preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, 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 have also been taken. On merits, it is submitted that claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss occurred due to Rains but same is not leading to Inundation which is covered for loss under the scheme. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.3 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op is only liable to conduct crop cutting experiment and made its report according to the CCE’s which is prescribed in the operational guidelines of PMFBY. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Subhash Chander son of Shri Prem Kumar as Ex. CW2/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to C10.
7. On the other hand, op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R1 and copies of documents Ex. R2 and Ex.R3.
8. OP no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sumit Kamboj, Branch Manager and Principal Officer as Ex.R4.
9. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities and as such evidence of op no.2 was closed by order.
10. 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.
11. The complainant in order to prove loss of cotton crop in his village Mehnakhera including his crop of Kharif, 2017 has placed on file report of office of Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa alongwith letter Ex.C7 in which it is reported that average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in village Mehna Khera was 197.34 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Rania was 628.74 kgs. per hectare and as such as per operational guidelines of PMFBY as the average yield of cotton crop of village Mehna Khera was less than threshold yield of block Rania, there was loss to the cotton crop of kharif, 2017 in village Mehna Khera. The complainant has also placed on file affidavit of Sh. Subhash Chander as Ex. CW2/A in which he has testified that he is having his agricultural land in village Mehna Khera and he has received claim amount of Rs.1,20,115.99 from the insurance company on 25.01.2019 on account of damage to his cotton crop of kharif, 2017. So, it is proved on record that there was also loss to the cotton crop of kharif, 2017 of the complainant. During the course of arguments, op no.1 bank has also placed on file document regarding transaction of the amount in the account of op no.2 insurance company for insuring the crops of farmers including complainant and from this document it is proved on record that an amount of Rs.2,63,186/- including the premium amount of Rs.5753/- deducted from the account of complainant on 31.07.2017 was transferred in the account of op no.2 insurance company through NEFT No. SAA46455496. On the other hand, op no.2 insurance company has not led any evidence in support of its averments and has not proved on record that it did not receive any premium amount for insurance of cotton crop of 2017 of complainant. So, it is proved on record that cotton crop of kharif, 2017 of complainant was insured with op no.2 insurance company. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in year 2017 was 69,000/- per hectare as per Haryana Govt. notification dated 13.06.2017 Ex.R2 placed on file by op no.3. So, as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.2,49,025/- for the loss of his cotton crop in his about 13 acres of land which is equal to 5.26 hectares of land and op no.2 insurance company is liable to pay the said claim amount to the complainant as his cotton crop of kharif, 2017 was insured with op no.2. However, there is no liability of remaining ops no.1 and 3 to pay any amount to the complainant.
12. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.2 insurance company and direct the op no.2 to pay insurance claim amount of Rs.2,49,025/- ( in round figure Rs.2,49,000/-) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which op no.2 will be liable to pay the said amount of Rs.2,49,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op no.2 to further pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua ops no.1 and 3 is 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: 12.09.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
