BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 160 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 11.03.2022.
Date of Decision : 26.07.2024.
1. Diwan Singh son of Shri Juglal, 2. Parwati widow of late Sh. Juglal, both residents 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. State Bank of India through Manager, Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa, Haryana.
4. Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch village Nehrana, 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.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………….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. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Smt. Sunita Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
ORDER
The complainants have filed the present joint 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 agriculturists and are having Kisan Credit card accounts with ops no.3 and 4 bearing account numbers 65198114236 and 81188800017473 respectively against their share of land measuring 1.61 hectares and 1.86 hectares respectively situated in the revenue estate of village Shakker Mandori. That as per crop insurance scheme, the ops no.3 and 4 deducted insurance premium amounts of Rs. 1942/- and Rs.2246.40 respectively from the account of complainants for insurance of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2016 with op no.1. 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 are eligible for the sum assured amount of Rs.24,000/- per acre alongwith interest. The complainants approached the op no.1 for insurance claim but every time the complainants were informed that they have not received the crop cutting report from op no.2. It is further averred that complainants approached the ops several times and requested to pay compensation but none of the ops paid any claim amount to them 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 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 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 755.77 Kgs. while the threshold yield is 606.78 Kgs., hence complainants are not entitled to any claim. Thus, the claim is correctly repudiated by answering op as per operational guidelines. On merits, while reiterating the pleas of preliminary objections, it is submitted that only two pickings were completed by the complainants instead of three pickings which makes the case suspicious just to take money from public fund. In absence of adequate pickings of crop, actual yield cannot be determined and complainants are themselves liable for their own negligence. 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 version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant no.1 is having his loan account bearing no. 65198114236 with answering op whereas complainant no.2 is having her loan account bearing No. 81188800017473 with op no.4 bank. On the asking of complainant no.1, the answering op has got insured the declared Kharif 2016 crops of the complainant no.1 with op no.1 and accordingly the answering op has deducted a sum of Rs.1942/- on account of insurance premium from loan account of complainant no.1 and transferred the same to op no.1. The answering op never got insured any crops of complainant no.2. It is further submitted that there has been no liability of answering op to indemnify the loss of complainant no.1, if any. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. Op no.4 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only duty of answering op was to deduct the amount of premium from the accounts of farmers 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, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.4 made.
7. The complainants in evidence have tendered their affidavits as Ex. CW1/A, Ex. CW2/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.
8. On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 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. RW3/1 (it should be Ex.RW2/1) to Ex. RW2/3. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Suresh Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex. R3/1 and statement of account Ex. R3/2. Op no.4 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Divya Assistant Manager as Ex. RW4/A and statement of account Ex. R4/1.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
10. In so far as objection of the ops regarding delay in filing the present complaint is concerned, as op no.2 has been writing letters to op no.1 for settlement of cotton crop of Kharif, 2016 season of the farmers of village Shakker Mandori, therefore, delay in filing the complaint is liable to be condoned and is hereby condoned.
11. 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 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. So, it cannot be said that threshold yield of block was more than actual yield of village Shakker Mandori. It is proved on record from statements of account Ex.R3/2 and Ex.Ex.R4/1 that premium amounts of Rs.1942/- and Rs.2246.40 respectively were deducted from the accounts of the complainants for insurance of their cotton crop of the complainants. From the Haryana Govt. notification dated 17.06.2016 (Ex.RW2/1), 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 no.1 is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.57,200/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in his 1.61 hectares of land whereas complainant no.2 is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.66,100/- for the loss of her cotton crop of Kharif, 2016 in her 1.86 hectares of land. The op no.1 insurance company is liable to pay the said claim amounts to the complainants being insurer of crop of complainants because it received insurance premium amounts from complainants through ops no.3 and 4.
12. 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.57,200/- to the complainant no.1 and to pay above said claim amount of Rs.66,100/- to the complainant no.2 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 of Rs.57,200/- and Rs.66,100/- 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/- each as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to each complainant within above said stipulated period of 45 days. However, complaint qua remaining ops no.2 to 4 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. 26.07.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
