BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 652 of 2019
Date of Institution : 18.11.2019
Date of Order : 04.12.2019
Balbir, aged 52 years, son of Shri Bhalu Ram, resident of village & PO Shakkar Mandori, Tehsil and District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, S.C.O. 147-148, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.
- Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
- HDFC Bank Ltd., Sirsa Branch, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA………………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………..MEMBER.
Present: Sh. G.S. Kashnia, Advocate for complainant.
ORDER
Heard on the maintainability of complaint at preliminary stage.
2. It is averred in the complaint that complainant was having his account with op no.3 bank bearing account number 50200014882180. That complainant has got insured his share of land in Khewat Nos. 52, 133, 134 and 313 as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 for which the op no.3 deducted a sum of Rs.3504/- as premium from the account of complainant. It is further averred that complainant got insured his crop of cotton in 56 kanals 17 marlas agricultural land as per crop insurance scheme of Government and according to which premium of Rs.3504/- was deducted by op no.3 from the account of complainant on 20.8.2016 and same was deposited with op no.1 by op no.3. That in the year 2016, cotton crop of complainant which was insured was completely damaged due to attack of white fly and other natural disaster. Intimation in this regard was given to the ops and it was told to him that like complainant, cotton crop of other farmers of village has also been destroyed and their fields will be inspected with the officers/ officials of Agriculture Department and after assessment of loss, due compensation amount will be paid to complainant. Thereafter, op no.2 alongwith other officials of Agriculture Department and op no.1 visited the field of complainant and other farmers of village and prepared their report regarding damage of crop. It is further averred that thereafter, complainant visited the op no.1 on many occasions and asked for payment of compensation amount, but op no.1 always assured the complainant that he will get compensation amount as his claim is under process. That as per report of Agriculture department, the complainant is eligible for the sum assured of Rs.24,000/- per acre alongwith interest @18% per annum. It is further averred that complainant remained in constant touch with op no.3 in respect of payment of compensation for his damaged cotton crop in kharif 2016 season and op no.3 continuously gave assurances to him that he will get compensation as soon as amount is released by op no.1. That about two months ago, complainant came to know that few farmers of village had filed consumer complaints before the Forum seeking compensation for damaged crop in kharif 2016, which were decided in their favour on 19.12.2018. He further came to know that op no.1 had filed appeals against the order dated 19.12.2018 before Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula which have been dismissed vide order dated 25.3.2019 and the Hon’ble State Commission has held that the farmers of village Shakar Mandori who got their cotton crop kharif 2016 insured with op o.1 were also entitled for the damage of the crop by way of compensation. It is further averred that complainant after coming to know of above decisions, approached the ops and requested them to pay him compensation amount, but the ops have now refused to do so finally two days ago. That in this manner, all the ops are indulged in unfair trade practice and have also committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and thereby have caused financial loss and harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. As per allegations of complainant in para no.2 of the complaint, he has got insured his share of land in khewat nos.52, 133, 134 and 313 for which op no.3 deducted premium from the account of complainant. Further it has been alleged that in the year 2016, cotton crop of complainant was badly damaged due to attack of white fly and other natural disaster. It has further been alleged that he had been approaching ops for grant of compensation, but however, they did not pay any amount. The perusal of complaint of complainant reveals that complainant has not placed on record any application or representation made to the ops claiming compensation from the date of loss of crop nor he has placed on record any letter of refusal for grant of compensation to the complainant. Rather, it appears from the pleadings of the complainant as well as documents placed on record that complainant himself did not take any initiative to claim compensation from the ops, if he had lost his crop. Nor he has placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that he ever suffered any loss of crop nor the land of complainant was ever inspected by agricultural department during the period when cotton crop was standing. Moreover, complainant has not placed on record any report of agricultural department qua the alleged loss of crop of complainant.
4. The complainant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula passed in first appeal No.138 of 2019 titled as Reliance General Ins. Company Vs. Puran etc. decided on 25.3.2019 in which there is reference in para no.10 that “farmers of village Shakker Mandori, who got their cotton crop kharif 2016 insured with op no.1 were also entitled for the damage of the crop by way of compensation”. But this order does not find mention that limitation period of filing of complaint has been extended.
5. Since complainant has claimed compensation for the loss of kharif crop of 2016 which was to end in the month of October/ November, 2016 though loss was allegedly suffered by complainant prior to that and present complaint has been filed by complainant on 18.11.2019 after period of more than three years. In this regard, Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides as under:-
24A. Limitation period-
- The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
6. The complainant has not moved any application for condonation of delay as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 explaining sufficient cause for not filing the complaint well within time. So, the present complaint filed by complainant is barred by limitation and as such same is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the complainant as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:04.12.2019. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
