BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 655 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 18.11.2019.
Date of Decision : 31.10.2023.
1. Ram Sawrup aged 68 years son of Hem Raj, 2. Baldev aged 64 years son of Hem Raj, 3. Bharat Singh aged 63 years adopted son of Mula Ram, 4. Vinod aged 35 years son of Bharat Singh, all residents of village Shakkar Mandori, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, S.C.O. 147-148, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.
2. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Haryana.
3. State Bank of Patiala now known as State Bank of India, Nathusari Chopta, through Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. V.P. 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 complainants have filed the present joint complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainants is that they are agriculturists by profession and are having their agriculture land in village Shakkar Mandori, District Sirsa. That complainants had mortgaged their share of land i.e. 32 kanals 13 marlas, 79 kanals 08 marlas, 64 kanals, 52 kanals 5 marlas and 224 kanals 10 marlas (as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) as per jamabandi for the year 2012-13 in favour of op no.3 and have availed crop loan from op no.3 through kisan credit cards bearing account nos. 65018548104, 65074443647, 65106534178 and 65244426925 respectively. That op no.3 got insured their crop of kharif, 2016 with op no.1 and accordingly op no.3 deducted the insurance premium of Rs.4246.30 from account of complainant no.1, Rs.2056.80 from account of complainant no.2, Rs.2422/- from account of complainant no.3 and requisite premium has also been deducted from account of complainant no.4 and same were paid to op no.1. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainant of year 2016 was completely damaged due to the white fly and other natural disaster. The complainants reported the matter to ops no.2 and 3 and the officials of all the ops inspected the agriculture fields of complainants and prepared the report regarding damage to the crop of complainants. That as per report submitted by Agriculture department, complainants are eligible for the sum insured i.e. payment of Rs.25,000/- per acre. It is further averred that complainants approached the ops several times and requested to pay compensation but none of the ops paid any claim amount to them 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. Thereafter complainants also got served legal notice upon ops on 21.08.2019 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction, delay and that dispute is of civil nature. It is also submitted that multiple claims cannot be adjudicated in a single complaint and that actual yield is greater than threshold yield. The contents of complaint are also denied. 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 complainants picked the same only two times from which the alleged loss is occurred. The complainants and other ops never intimated to the insurance company regarding any type of crop damage and complainants never approached the answering op. It is further submitted that 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 complainants 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 complainants have approached this Forum with bad intention by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme. 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 all the complainants have separately mortgaged their land in favour of answering op and have availed loan facilities separately. Moreover, their loan accounts are also separate with answering op but the complainants have filed joint petition which is not maintainable in the eyes of law, hence the same is liable to be dismissed on this score only. It is further submitted that on asking of complainants the answering op has got insured the declared crops of complainant with op no.1 and transferred the amount of premium to op no.1. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. The complainants in evidence have tendered affidavit of Sh. Ram Sawrup complainant as Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.
7. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, Area Legal Manager as Ex. R1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R13. OP no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Suresh Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex.R14. OP no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R16 and documents Ex.R17 to Ex.R19.
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 ops regarding delay in filing the present complaint and filing of joint complaint are concerned, vide order dated 05.07.2021 delay in filing the complaint has already been condoned and application seeking permission to file joint complaint under Section 12 (c) of the Act has also been allowed and therefore, above said objections of ops at this stage are 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.R18 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.R18, there was loss to the cotton crop of complainants 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. The op no.1 insurance company has not relied upon any yield data as provided by the Govt. of Haryana to op no.1 as alleged in its emails. 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.R18 that there was loss to the cotton crop of complainants 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 village Shakkar Mandori as average yield remained as 247.38 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block was 606.78 kgs. per hectare. As per Haryana Govt. notification dated 17.06.2016, premium amount of Rs.1200/- per hectare was to be deducted from the account of farmers for insurance of their cotton crops. Though complainants have averred that premium amount of Rs.4246.30 was deducted from the account of complainant no.1, premium amount of Rs.2056.80 was deducted from the account of complainant no.2, premium amount of Rs.2422/- was deducted from the account of complainant no.3 and requisite premium was also deducted from the account of complainant no.4 but however, the perusal of bank pass books of complainants no.1 to 3 Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 respectively reveal that an amount of Rs.2246.30 was deducted from the account of complainant no.1, an amount of Rs.2056.80 was deducted from the account of complainant no.2 and premium amount of Rs.2422/- was deducted from the account of complainant no.3. Though one page of the bank pass book of complainant no.4 Vinod Kumar is placed on file but same has not been exhibited or marked and even the entry of the same starts from 05.06.2017. However, in this regard Suresh Kumar Branch Manager of op no.3 in his affidavit Ex.R14 has stated that on the request of complainant no.4, the answering op has got his crop insured with op no.1 and has paid the amount of premium to insurance company after debiting the same to the loan account of complainant no.4. So there is no denial of the fact that premium amount was not debited from the account of complainant no.4. The insurance company no.1 has also not denied the factum of receiving premium amount of all the complainants. The perusal of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C6 reveals that 40 Kanals 09 Marlas land of the share of complainant no.4 was mortgaged with op no.3 bank and as such complainant no.4 is entitled to insurance claim amount for the said area of his share since deduction of premium amount from his account is not disputed. Since amount of Rs.1200/- per hectare was to be deducted from the account of farmers as premium, therefore, it is proved on record that premium amount of Rs.2246.30 was deducted from account of complainant no.1 for insurance of his cotton crop in his 1.871 hectares of land, premium amount of Rs.2056.80 was deducted from account of complainant no.2 for insurance of his cotton crop in his 1.714 hectares of land and premium amount of Rs.2422/- was deducted from the account of complainant no.3 for insurance of his cotton crop in 2.018 hectares of land. The complainant no.4 is entitled to insurance claim amount for his 2.068 hectares of land. Further more, from the revenue record in the shape of khasra girdawari placed on record at the time of arguments, it is evident that complainants no.1 to 4 had sown cotton crop in their above said shares of land. Moreover, it is not denied by bank or insurance company that cotton crop was not sown by complainants in their above said area/ land. A formula has been given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY for calculation of loss of crop which is as under:-
Threshold yield minus average yield
____________________________ X Sum Insured.
Threshold yield
11. From the Haryana Govt. notification dated 17.06.2016 Ex.R17, 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 above said formula, the complainant no.1 Ram Sawrup is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.66,492/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in his 1.871 hectares of land, complainant no.2 Baldev is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.60,912/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in his 1.714 hectares of land, complainant no.3 Bharat Singh is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.71,716/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in his 2.018 hectares of land and complainant no.4 Vinod is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.73,493/- for the loss of his cotton crop in his 2.068 hectares of land. The op no.1 insurance company is liable to pay the said claim amounts to the complainants no.1 to 4 being insurer of crop of complainants because it received insurance premiums from complainants no.1 to 4 through op no.3 and has not denied the factum of insurance of cotton crop of complainants no.1 to 4 of kharif, 2016.
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 amounts of Rs.66,492/- to complainant no.1, amount of Rs.60,912/- to complainant no.2, amount of Rs.71,716/- to complainant no.3 and amount of Rs.73,493/- to complainant no.4 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainants no.1 to 4 will be entitled to receive the above said amounts of their shares 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.20,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainants no.1 to 4 in equal share 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. 31.10.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
