BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 45 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 22.01.2020.
Date of Decision : 15.02.2024.
Dharam Pal son of Shri Sampat Kasnia, resident of V.P.O. ShakkerMandori, 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. State Bank of India through its Manager, village Shahpur Begu, District Sirsa, Haryana.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT.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. Rakesh Babbar, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is a farmer and is having kisan credit card account with op no.3 vide account number 34427093024. He is having his share of land measuring around 3.0 acres 3.0 kanals comprised in khewat nos. 3, 10 and 180 (as per jamabandi for the year 2012-13) situated in the revenue estate of village Shakker Mandori, District Sirsa. That on 28.07.2016 insurance premium amount of Rs.1659/- was deducted from the account of complainant by op no.3 for insurance of his crop of kharif, 2016 with op no.1 as per crop insurance scheme namely Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It is further averred that in the year 2016 cotton crop of complainant was completely damaged due to white fly. The complainant reported the matter to ops and the op no.2 alongwith other officials and op no.1 inspected the agriculture fields of complainant and prepared the report regarding damage to the crop of complainant. That as per report submitted by Agriculture department, complainant is eligible for the sum insured i.e. payment of Rs.24,000/- per acre. 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 but ops have caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service towards complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction and non intimation etc. and that complaint is not maintainable because it was filed after long delay of about five years without any valid reason. On merits, it is submitted that as per report of Agriculture department the above village Shakkar Mandori does not quality for the yield basis claim and threshold yield of block average is 606.78 but this block contains the yield average as 755.08 which is very above from the minimum yield. The complainant has less picking of cotton crop and as per the area tradition of the picking of cotton crop is not less than 3 to 4 times but the complainant picked the same only two times from which the alleged loss is occurred. The complainant and other related agencies never intimated to the insurance company regarding any type of crop damage and complainant never approached the answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 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 as per policy answering op has debited insurance premium amount and total collected premium amount in branch including the premium amount of complainant has been deposited with op no.1 within prescribed period and op no.1 has also accepted the said premium belonging to the complainant. The matter regarding payment of compensation is between farmer/ complainant and insurance company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7.
7. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, Legal Manager as Ex. R1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R13. OP no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh Deputy Director of Agriculture as Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex. RW2/1 to Ex. RW2/3. Though OP no.3 did not lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities but during the course of arguments op no.3 placed on file affidavit of Sh. Parveen Kumar, Branch Manager.
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 carefully.
9. In so far as objections of the op no.1 regarding delay in filing the present complaint is concerned, vide order dated 02.08.2021 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.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 complainant of kharif, 2016. The op no.1 insurance company has not relied upon any valid proof/ document in support of its plea to prove the fact that the average yield of village Shakkar Mandori was more than threshold yield of block. As such report of agriculture department which is placed on record has to be given importance and is to be relied upon for determination of the fact regarding loss of crop and as such it is proved on record from report Ex.RW2/3 that there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant in 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 Haryana Govt. notification dated 17.06.2016 Ex.RW2/2, 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 the operational guidelines of PMFBY the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.47,266/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in his 3 acres 3 kanals of land which is equal to 1.33 hectare 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 premiums from complainant through op no.3 and has not denied the factum of insurance of cotton crop of complainant of kharif, 2016.
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.47,266/- 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 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. 15.02.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
