BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 13 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 09.01.2020.
Date of Decision : 03.04.2024.
Lilu Ram son of Shri Dhanpat, 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. Oriental Bank of Commerce through its Manager, City Thana Road, Sirsa, Haryana.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sushil Saharan, 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.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( now after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. 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 is having Kisan Credit card account with op no.3 bearing account number 00685110001280 against his share of land measuring around four acres situated in the revenue estate of village Shakker Mandori. That as per crop insurance scheme, the op no.3 bank deducted insurance premium amount of Rs.2002.81 from the above account of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2016 season with op no.1 and premium amount was deposited with op no.1 by op no.3. 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 complainant is 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. It is submitted that except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalized by Government agencies on the basis of yield of crop and thereafter, claims were to be paid to bank of farmers. The insurance company is playing a role of implementing agency in the scheme in accordance with guidelines prescribed by Government. Further more, in localized claims, three perils are covered under the scheme i.e. hailstorm, landslide and inundation affecting isolated farms in the notified area. For localized claims, there was a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. After intimation of claim, necessary survey of affected area had to be conducted by surveyor for decision of claim of farmers. It is further submitted that present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum (now Commission) because complainant has approached with bad intention even without approaching to grievance cell of Government agencies as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme. It is not an individual insurance policy like other insurance policies rather it is a group insurance scheme in accordance with agreed terms and conditions of scheme which are binding on all concerned related to the scheme. The complainant should have approached to DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and the decision of said department would be binding on all state Government/ Insurance Company/ Banks and farmers but instead of filing complaint or grievance there, the complainant has approached this Commission with bad intention by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme. It is further submitted that as per bank account details of the complainant provided in the complaint is 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. Therefore, there is absolute liability of the bank. It is further submitted that answering op filed an application for supplying the various documents which were necessary for disposal of present complaint but complainant and other ops intentionally and with malafide intention never supplied the required documents and that complaint is not maintainable because it was filed after long delay of about five years without any valid reason. 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 separate written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that on the request of complainant, the answering op got the crops of Kharif 2016 of the complainant as declared by him insured with op no.1 and paid a sum of Rs.2002.81 on account of insurance premium to the insurance company after debiting the same to the loan account of complainant. The answering op has not charged any penny for itself on account of any insurance of crops of complainant. The amount received by insurance company from answering op has not been refunded till today. Hence, it is the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the loss of the crops of complainant, if any because the crops of complainant has been insured with it. 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. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.
7. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory as Ex. RW1/A. OP no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex. RW2/1 to Ex.RW2/3. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Subhash Choudhary, Branch Manager as Ex. RW3/A and documents Ex. R3/1 and Ex. R3/2.
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.
9. In so far as objection of the op no.1 regarding delay in filing the present complaint is concerned, vide order dated 18.10.2021 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.RW2/1 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.RW2/1, there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant 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. The plea taken by op no.1 insurance company that as per bank account details of the petitioner provided in the complaint 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. It is proved on record from document Ex.C1 and Ex.R3/1 that premium amount of Rs.2002.81 was deducted from the account of the complainant for insurance of his cotton crop in 26 kanals 13 marlas of land of the complainant. 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 operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.47,000/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in his 1.321 hectares 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 premium from complainant through op no.3.
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.47,000/- 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.47,000/- 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 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 President
Dt. 03.04.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
