BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 229 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 06.10.2020.
Date of Decision : 30.08.2024.
Brij Lal son of Shri Atma 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. The Nathusari Kalan, P.A.C.S Ltd. through its Manager, Village Nathusari Kalan, District Sirsa, Haryana.
4. State Bank of India through its Manager, Branch Nathusari Chopta, 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 complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Smt. Kiran Rani, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.2.
Sh. G.S. Kasnia, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
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 has Kisan Credit card account with ops no.3 and 4 bearing account numbers 100570 and 65076584438 respectively. He is having land measuring around 2.0 acres and 1.4 acres 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.970.09 and Rs.607/- respectively from the accounts of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2016 with op no.1. 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 complainants are 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 maintainability, non intimation and jurisdiction etc. It is further submitted that as per details provided in the complaint, bank account numbers of complainant are not matching with the insured farmer records as available with them for Kharif, 2016 season under District Sirsa and as such in the absence of coverage details, the op no.1 cannot be held liable for payment of crop insurance claims and accordingly it is observed that defect and deficiency is on the part of the bank. 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 has no account with answering op and thus, no crop of complainant has been got insured by answering op and no insurance premium has been deducted from the alleged account of complainant since the account mentioned in the complaint does not belong to the complainant. However, the insurance premium deducted from the account of loanee farmers total amounting to Rs.16,51,609/- was remitted to op no.1 in its bank account on 0.07.2016. Remaining contents of complainant are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. Op no.4 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op has deducted a sum of Rs.607/- from the loan account of complainant on account of insurance premium and transferred the same to op no.1 for insurance of crop of Kharif, 2016 of complainant and as such op no.1 is to indemnify the loss, if any to the crop of complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
7. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7.
8. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory as Ex. RW1/A. OP no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Nihal Singh, Manager as Ex. RW3/A. OP no.4 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Suresh Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex. RW4/A. Though op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities but at the time of arguments, placed on file Haryana Govt. notification dated 17.06.2016, letters etc. and report of Deputy Director Agriculture department Sirsa.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and Smt. Kiran Rani, SA for op no.2 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 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, 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. From the copy of pass book of account of complainant bearing No. 65076584438 maintained with op no.4, it is evident that on 31.07.2016 premium amount of Rs.607/- was deducted from the account of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2016 in his 1.4 acres of land situated in village Shakker Mandori and op no.4 bank has asserted that said premium amount was paid to op no.1 for insurance of cotton crop of complainant. However, op no.3 has asserted that complainant is not having his account with it and his cotton crop was not got insured with any insurance company. Though complainant has asserted that he is having account number 100570 with op no.3 and mortgaged his land measuring 02 acres with op no.3 but perusal of detail provided by op no.3 placed on file by complainant himself as Ex.C3 reveals that said account is of one Om Parkash of village Shakker Mandori and not of the complainant and as such complainant is not entitled to any insurance claim amount for 02 acres of land as no premium for said land was deducted whereas he is entitled to insurance claim amount for the loss of his cotton crop in his 1.4 acres of land for which premium was deducted by op no.4 and was paid to op no.1. The plea taken by op no.1 insurance company that details/ bank account of the complainant is not matching with the insured farmer records as available with them for kharif 2016 season has no substance and is not proved through any cogent and convincing evidence and no detail of farmer available with op no.1 has been placed on record to prove the said plea. From the Haryana Govt. notification dated 17.06.2016, 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.20,000/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in his 1.4 acre 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 in his 1.4 acres of land because it received insurance premium amount from complainant through op no.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.20,000/- 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.20,000/- 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 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. 30.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
