BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 163 of 2019
Date of Institution : 4.4.2019
Date of Order : 18.9.2019
- Diwan Singh, aged 38 years son of Shri Juglal,
- Parwati aged 68 years widow of late Sh. Juglal, both residents of V.P.O. Shakker Mandori, Block Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa, Haryana. ……Complainants.
Versus.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, S.C.O. 147-148, Madhya Marg, Sector-9C, Chandigarh.
- Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Haryana.
- State Bank of India through Manager, Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa, Haryana.
- Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch village Nahrana, District Sirsa, Haryana.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA………………….. PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………..MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Parveen Godara, Advocate for complainants/ applicants.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO on behalf of opposite party no.2.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
ORDER
Heard on the application for condonation of delay.
2. It is alleged in the application that applicants had insured their crop of cotton for the kharif season of year 2016 with the op no.1 through op no.3 and the cotton crop of applicants was damaged due to natural calamity which was insured under PMFBY scheme. It is further alleged that applicants intimated the op no.2 regarding the loss and thereafter op no.2 communicated the above fact to op no.1. The applicants had visited the ops many a times for the disbursement of their claim on account of damage of cotton crop for the kharif 2016 season but every time op no.2 told the applicants that they are in conversation with the op no.1 for the settlement of cotton crop claim and had shown to the applicants the letters sent to the op no.1 regarding the above fact and on this assurance, the applicants had not filed the present complaint earlier but till today the applicants have not received the sum assured. Hence, this application alongwith the complaint.
3. In reply to the application, it is submitted by op no.1 that present application is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. The complainants have neither shown any deficiency nor any undue denial of service on the part of op as per the terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is further submitted that every consumer complaint must be entertained within two years from the date of cause of action. The cause of action mentioned by the complainants is of 2016 and no further events have been mentioned in the application. No consumer dispute has arisen between the parties. No documents have been placed on record to show that complainants have approached the answering op insurance company.
4. Opposite parties no.2 and 4 in their separate replies submitted that in the application the complainants have not mentioned any ground of condonation, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed on this score only. The other contents of the application are also denied to be wrong.
5. Opposite party no.3 in its reply submitted that no information with regard to loss of crop was given to op no.3.
6. Learned counsel for complainants have contended that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint well in time and delay is liable to be condoned and has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. and another CA No.3883 of 2007 decided on 7.4.2017.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 has contended that complaint itself is not maintainable against op no.1. No intimation of loss was ever given to op no.1 nor any claim was lodged with op no.1 and complainants have not shown any sufficient cause for condonation of delay nor complainants have furnished any affidavit in support of their application.
8. Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO on behalf of op no.2 has also contended that application is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. No intimation of loss of any crop was ever given by complainants to op no.2 nor any claim was lodged. The complaint moved by complainants against op no.2 is not maintainable and same is duly time barred.
9. Learned counsel for op no.3 as well as op no.4 have contended that no information regarding loss of crop was ever given to ops no.3 and 4 nor any application was moved to get loss assessed nor they claimed any compensation from the insurance company through them. The applicants have fully failed to establish sufficient cause for not filing the complaint well within time.
10. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for complainants/ applicants.
11. The perusal of the record reveals that complainants have filed the present complaint against the ops with the averments that complainants are holding agricultural land in village Shakker Mandori, District Sirsa and are also holding kisan credit account with ops no.3 and 4. As per Government notification, after the introduction of crop insurance scheme, every farmer was required to get his crop insured. In pursuance to that instructions, complainants had got their crop of khairf 2016 insured from op no.1 through ops no.3 and 4 by paying requisite premium which was deducted by ops no.3 and 4 and same was paid to op no.1.
12. Further, there are allegations that due to white fly and climate condition, cotton crop of complainants for the kharif season of year 2016 was damaged, which was insured with op no.1 through ops no.3 and 4. The complainants have alleged that they have informed to the ops qua loss/ damage of their crop well in time, but however, they did not pay any compensation, for which they are entitled. The perusal of the record further reveals that complainants have not placed on record any application/ letter addressed to any of the ops qua intimation of loss/ damage of their crop nor they have placed on record any copy of the claim which they have ever lodged with ops. No doubt, requisite amount of premium was deducted by ops no.3 and 4 from KCC account of complainants and same was paid to op no.1 and crop of complainants was insured but it was legal obligation of the complainants to inform the ops qua damage of their crop well within time and to lodge claim, but however, record reveals that neither they have informed the ops nor they have lodged claim with any of the ops.
13. It is undisputed fact that crop cutting was effected lastly in the month of October, 2016, but however, the complainants did not lodge any claim with ops nor they have placed on record any khasra girdawari entry of which are recorded by Halqa Patwari showing any loss or damage of their crop. The cause of action had accrued to the complainants after October, 2016 and complainants were required to file complaint within a period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So complaint of complainant does not appear to be maintainable and same is time barred.
14. Though, complainants have moved this application with the averments that they had informed the op no.2 but they have not placed on record any supported document. The applicants/ complainants have not placed on record any record of visit of the officials of ops at the land of the complainants nor they have placed on record any name of the witness in whose presence land was inspected. 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.
15. Since, complainants have not proved on record sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within period of two years from the accrual of cause of action nor have placed on record any document in support of their plea taken in the application, so the application moved by complainants does not appear to be maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainants has referred judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. and another CA No.3883 of 2007 decided on 7.4.2017, the facts of which are distinguishable from the facts of present case since in the reported case the loss was caused on 6.8.1992 due to heavy incessant rain and the claim was filed by the insured on 7th and 8th August, 1992 and thereafter a surveyor was appointed by the insurance company who submitted his report in November, 1993 and other surveyor was appointed who submitted his report in November 1994, but however, nothing was paid to the complainant and ultimately a legal notice was sent on 22.4.1996 and thereafter complaint was filed in the year 1997, but however, claim of complainant was repudiated in May, 2001 during the pendency of the complaint by insurance company despite the fact that complaint had already been filed in the year 1997. After considering all the facts and evidence on record, Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the plea of the insurance company that complaint is time barred. But in the present case, the complainants were well aware of the thing that if they have suffered any loss of crop in Kharif 2016, Halqa Patwari must have recorded the loss of crop in his entry of khasra girdawari. The complainants have not placed on record any copy of khasra girdawari. The complainants have alleged that they had duly informed ops regarding the loss but they have not placed on record any document of intimation given to the ops nor they have placed on record any copy of claim which they ever lodged with any of the ops. They have not proved any sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action which has accrued to the complainants after October 2016, nor they have placed on record any affidavit in support of their averments made in the application.
16. In view of our above discussion, the application of applicants appears to be devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the complaint also stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:18.9.2019. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
