BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 177 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 16.03.2022.
Date of Decision : 18.10.2024.
Mangal Sain son of Shri Chand, resident of V.P.O. Shakker Mandori, 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. Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Village Nahrana, 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 complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Smt. Kiran Rani, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.2.
Smt. Sunita Gupta, Advocate 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 and is having Kisan Credit card account with op no.3 bearing account number 81188800014281 and is having approximately 59 kanals of land situated in the revenue estate of village Shakker Mandori. That as per crop insurance scheme, the op no.3 bank deducted insurance premium amount of Rs.3520/- 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 regarding jurisdiction, non intimation, delay and that complaint is not maintainable on the ground that actual yield is greater than threshold yield. On merits, it is submitted that as per report of Agriculture department the above village Shakkar Mandori does not quality for the yield basis claim as threshold yield of block is 606.78 and actual yield of village is 755.08 which is very above from the minimum yield. The complainant has less picking of cotton crop and as per the area tradition of the picking of cotton crop is not less than 3 to 4 times but the complainant picked the same only two times from which the alleged loss is occurred. Remaining contents of complaint are also 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 written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only responsibility of answering op was to deduct the premium amount from the account of complainant and to deposit the same with the op no.1. The answering op has discharged its statutory duty assigned to it and has not committed any negligence. Remaining contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.
7. On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, Legal Manager as Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R12. OP no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex. R2/1 to Ex.R2/3. OP no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Assistant Manager as Ex. RW3/A.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as SA for op no.2 and have gone through the case file.
9. The Agriculture department which is liable to conduct survey of loss of crops of farmers has placed on file report of Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmers Welfare department, Sirsa as Ex.R2/1 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.R2/1, 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 but as op no.1 did not pay claim to the complainant therefore after waiting for considerable time the complainant has filed present complaint and as such delay if any is condoned. From the Haryana Govt. notification dated 17.06.2016 Ex.R2/3, 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, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.1,05,000/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in his 59 kanals of land. The op no.1 insurance company is liable to pay the said claim amount to the complainant being insurer of crop of complainant because it received insurance premium amount from complainant through op no.3.
10. 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.1,05,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to receive the above said amount 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, complaint qua remaining ops no.2 and 3 stands dismissed. It is also made clear that 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. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President
Dt. 18.10.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
