BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 236 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 20.09.2021.
Date of Decision : 07.05.2024.
Virender Singh son of Shri Datta Ram, 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. Oriental Bank of Commerce through its Manager, Branch Shah Satnam Ji Nagar, Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. Haryana.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint 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. Parveen Godara, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.2.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, 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 account with op no.3 bearing account number 09895111005584 and has got mortgaged his share of land measuring around 18 kanals 5 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Shakker Mandori with op no.3. That as per crop insurance scheme, the op no.3 bank deducted insurance premium amount of Rs.1108.30 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 whereas op no.2 stated that they have sent the report to op no.1. 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. The earlier complaint between the same parties was withdrawn on 23.08.2021 due to technical defect. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction, delay etc. On merits, it is submitted that as per operational guidelines, yield claim is not payable if the actual yield is greater than threshold yield. In the present matter, actual yield of village is more than threshold yield of block. Hence, complainant is not entitled to any claim and thus the claim is correctly repudiated by answering op as per operational guidelines. 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 op no.2 is only liable to conduct the survey of loss and to prepare the report and same has been done by op no.2 well within prescribed time period and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. Op no.3 also filed separate written statement submitting therein that bank has debited the premium amount of Rs.1108.30 on 02.08.2016 from the account of complainant as insurance premium for Kharif 2016 and was remitted to op no.1 alongwith all the information required by insurance company. The premium amount has never been refunded back and insurance company has never informed answering op regarding the claim. Remaining contents of complaint are also 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, authorized signatory as Ex. RW1/A and documents R1/1 to Ex.R1/11. 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 into evidence affidavit of Sh. Surender Singh, Branch Manager as Ex.RW3/A and statement of account Ex.R3/1.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.2 and have gone through the case file.
9. In so far as objection of the op no.1 regarding delay in filing the present complaint is concerned, vide order dated 04.10.2021 delay in filing the complaint has already been condoned and therefore, above said objection of op no.1 at this stage is immaterial and the complaint is to be decided on merits.
10. 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.R2/3 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.R2/3, 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. It is proved on record from document Ex.C2 that premium amount of Rs.1108.30 was deducted from the account of the complainant for insurance of his cotton crop in 18 kanals 05 marlas of land of the complainant. From the Haryana Govt. notification dated 17.06.2016 Ex.R2/2, 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, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.33,000/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in his 18 kanals 05 marlas 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 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.33,000/- 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 of Rs.33,000/- 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. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President
Dt. 07.05.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
