BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 173 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 16.03.2022.
Date of Decision : 18.10.2024.
1. Ram Singh, 2. Ram Kumar both sons of Shri Ramji Lal, resident of V.P.O. Shakker Mandori, Block Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainants.
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, Village 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.
Smt. Kiran Rani, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Salesman for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainants have 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 complainants is that they are farmers and are having their loan account with op no.3 bearing account numbers 100342 and 100073 respectively against their share of land measuring about six acres each situated in the revenue estate of village Shakker Mandori. That as per crop insurance scheme, the op no.3 deducted insurance premium amount of Rs.2910/- each for insurance of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2016. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainants 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 complainants is eligible for the claim amount. The complainants approached the op no.1 for insurance claim but every time they were 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 complainants. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, non intimation, jurisdiction and that present complaint is not maintainable because it was filed after long delay of about five years without any valid reason. It is submitted that yield based claim was to be paid only if actual yield is found less than threshold yield but in the present case the actual yield is high and thus there is no liability of insurance company for any yield claim. On merits, it is submitted that as per report of agriculture department the above village Shakkar Mandori does not quality for the yield claim as threshold yield of block is 606.78 Kgs. per hectare and average yield of village is 755.08 Kgs. per hectare which is very above from the minimum yield. The complainants have less picking of cotton crop because as per area tradition the picking of cotton crop is not less than 3 to 4 times but the complainants picked the same only for two times from which the alleged loss if any is occurred, hence insurance company is not liable for any claim. 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 separate 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 land and crop of complainant to op no.1. The total premium amount of Rs.16,51,609/- of complainant and other loanee farmers was remitted to op no.1 in its bank account No. 00600350027635 through RTGS on 30.07.2016. It is further submitted that answering op did not get any information/ intimation about the damages to the cotton crop of 2016. However, the 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.
6. The complainants in evidence have tendered their affidavits Ex. CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.
7. On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered affidavit of Suryadeep Singh Thakur, Legal Manager as Ex. RW1/A and documents 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 documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/3.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as SA for op no.2 and Sh. Satish Kumar, authorized representative for op no.3 and have gone through the case file.
9. 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.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 complainants 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 complainants therefore after waiting for considerable time the complainants have filed present complaint and as such delay if any is condoned. So, it cannot be said that threshold yield of block was more than actual yield of village Shakker Mandori. It is proved on record that premium amounts of Rs.2910/- each deducted from the accounts of complainants were remitted to op no.1 by op no.3 for insurance of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2016 in six acres land each of both the complainants. 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 complainants are entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.86,000/- each for the loss of their cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in their six acres (each) of land. The op no.1 insurance company is liable to pay the said claim amount to the complainants being insurer of crop of complainants because it received insurance premium from complainants 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.86,000/- each (total Rs.1,72,000/-) to both the complainants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainants will be entitled to receive the above said amounts 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 complainants 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 complainants, 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.
