BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 20 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 10.01.2022.
Date of Decision : 04.06.2024.
Banwari son of Shri Nand Ram (since deceased) through his son Dalip son of Shri Banwari, resident of V.P.O. Shakker Mandori, Block Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, S.C.O. 147-148, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.
2. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Haryana.
3. Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS) through its Manager, Nathusari Kalan, District Sirsa, Haryana.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Parveen Godara, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Salesman for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist having around four acres of land situated in the revenue estate of village Shakker Mandori and is having account with op no.3 bearing account number 100326. That as per crop insurance scheme, the op no.3 deducted insurance premium amount of Rs.1940.18 from the above account of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2016 season with op no.1 and premium amount was deposited with op no.1 by op no.3. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainant of 2016 was completely damaged due to white fly and other natural calamity which was also verified by ops and as per report submitted by Agriculture department, the complainant is eligible for the sum assured amount of Rs.24,000/- per acre alongwith interest. The complainant approached the op no.1 for insurance claim but every time the complainant was informed that they have not received the crop cutting report from op no.2. It is further averred that complainant approached the ops several times and requested to pay compensation but none of the ops paid any claim amount to him and as such it is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of ops. That other farmers have already been paid claim amount and as such ops have caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that claim is time barred and deserves to be dismissed. The complaint pertains to non settlement of Kharif season of year 2016 and complaint is filed in the year 2020 (actually 2022), hence complaint is barred under limitation under Consumer Protection Act and deserves to be dismissed. Other preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, non intimation and jurisdiction are also taken. It is further submitted that as per operational guidelines, yield claim is not payable if the actual yield is greater than threshold yield. In the present case, actual yield is 755.8 Kgs. while the threshold yield is 606.78 Kgs., hence complainant is not entitled to any claim. On merits, while reiterating the pleas of preliminary objections, it is submitted that as per report of the Agriculture Department the block Nathusari Chopta does not qualify for the yield claim. The complainant has done less pickings of the cotton crop. As per the area tradition of pickings of the cotton crop is not less than 3 to 4 pickings. However, complainant has done only two pickings of the cotton crop. Remaining contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or report of survey of loss of crop is to be prepared by op no.2 and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of op no.2 in this regard. The yield basis claims are settled by insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by op no.2 within specific time period and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. Op no.3 also filed separate written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op debited the insurance premium amount from the loan account of complainant and furnished the particulars of the land and crop of complainant to op no.1. The insurance premium deducted from the account of complainant as well as other loanee farmers total amounting to Rs.16,51,609/- was remitted to op no.1 in its bank account through RTGS on 30.07.2016. It is further submitted that complainant did not give any intimation to the answering op about the damage to his crop. However, the insurance claim was to be paid by the 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.
6. The complainant Dalip has tendered his affidavit as Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.
7. On the other hand, Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R13. OP no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex. RW2/1 to Ex.RW2/3. Op no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Nihal Singh Manager as Ex. OPW3/A and documents Ex. OP3/1 and Ex.OP3/2.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.2 and Sh. Satish Kumar, Salesman for op no.3 and have gone through the case file.
9. In so far as objection of the ops regarding delay in filing the present complaint is concerned, vide order dated 28.01.2022 delay in filing the complaint has already been condoned and as such the complaint is to be decided on merits.
10. The complainant Dalip has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has stated that his father had expired on 01.01.2022 and he is his legal heir. The op no.3 has certified through Ex.C3 that cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2016 in his four acres was insured under PMFBY after deducting premium of Rs.1940.18/-. The Agriculture department which is liable to conduct survey of loss of crops has placed on file report of Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmers Welfare department, Sirsa as Ex.RW2/3 in which it is reported that average yield of cotton crop of kharif, 2016 of village Shakkar Mandori was 247.38 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta was 606.78 kgs. per hectare and as such as per this report Ex.RW2/3, there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant of kharif, 2016. Moreover, Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa through various letters as placed on file repeatedly recommended for assessment of loss of cotton crop of kharif, 2016 of the farmers of the village Shakkar Mandori as average yield remained as 247.38 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block was 606.78 Kgs. per hectare. So, it cannot be said that actual yield of village Shakker Mandori was more than threshold yield of block. It is proved on record from document Ex.OP3/1 that premium amount of farmers including complainant was paid to op no.1 insurance company by op no.3. From the Haryana Govt. notification dated 17.06.2016 Ex.RW2/2, it is evident that the sum insured amount of cotton crop in Sirsa District in 2016 was Rs.60,000/- per hectare. So, as per formula given in operational guidelines of PMFBY, Dalip son of Banwari being his legal heir is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.57,500/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in four acres of land. The op no.1 insurance company is liable to pay the said claim amount to him being insurer of crop of complainant because it received insurance premium from complainant through op no.3.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against opposite party no.1 insurance company and direct the op no.1 to pay above said claim amount of Rs.57,500/- to the complainant Dalip son of Banwari within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which he will be entitled to receive the above said amount of Rs.57,500/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from op no.1 from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op no.1 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period of 45 days. However, in case it is found that report of loss has been prepared on the basis of two pickings by the farmers including complainant, then op no.1 will be at liberty to avail remedy under the law against the concerned Agriculture department/ Govt. in view of the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in RP No. 2354 of 2019 titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sita Ram etc. decided on 19.12.2019. The complaint qua remaining ops no.2 and 3 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President
Dt. 04.06.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
