BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 654 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 18.11.2029.
Date of Decision : 31.10.2023.
1. Surender @ Salinder aged 38 years son of Jagdish, 2. Krishan Kumar aged 65 years son of Surja Ram, 3. Budh Ram aged 69 years son of Surja Ram, 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. Manager, Haryana Gramin Bank, Nehrana, District Sirsa.
4. 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.
Smt. Sunita Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
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 ops no.3 and 4 and have availed crop loan from ops no.3 and 4 through kisan credit cards bearing account nos. 65244427384 of complainant no.1 with op no.4, 81180100045468 of complainant no.2 and 81180100045538 of complainant no.3 with op no.3. That ops no.3 and 4 got insured their crop of kharif, 2016 with op no.1 and accordingly op no.4 deducted the insurance premium of Rs.2427.60 from account of complainant no.1, op no.3 deducted amount of Rs.3520.80 from account of complainant no.2 and requisite premium i.e. Rs.3520.80 was also deducted from the account of complainant no.3 by op no.3 and same were paid to op no.1. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainants of year 2016 was completely damaged due to the white fly and other natural disaster. The complainants reported the matter to ops no.2 to 4 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. 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 complainants have 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 answering op has debited the amount from the account of complainants and transferred the same to op no.1 as premium for insurance of crop of kharif, 2016 of complainants. The op no.1 has accepted the said amount without any objection and after acceptance of premium the matter regarding payment of compensation is between farmer/ complainants 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. Op no.4 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.4 made.
7. The complainants in evidence have tendered affidavit of Sh. Surender @Salinder complainant as Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.
8. 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.R14. OP no.4 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Suresh Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex.R15. 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. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Divya, Assistant Branch Manager as RW3/1/A.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 department, 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. The plea taken by op no.1 insurance company for the first time in the affidavit Ex.R1/A 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. As per document Ex.R4, it is evident that premium amount of Rs.1200/- per hectare was to be deducted from the account of farmers. In the present case, it is evident from copies of pass books Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, that premium amount of Rs.2427.60 was deducted from the account of complainant no.1 Surender for his 2.023 hectares of land, premium amount of Rs.3520.80 was deducted from the account of complainant no.2 Krishan for his 2.934 hectares of land and premium amount of Rs.2974.80 was deducted from the account of complainant no.3 Budh Ram for his 2.479 hectares of land. From the revenue record in the shape of khasra girdawari placed on record at the time of arguments, it is evident that complainants 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
12. 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 Surender is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.71,894/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in his 2.023 hectares of land, complainant no.2 Krishan Kumar is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.1,04,270/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in his 2.934 hectares of land and complainant no.3 Budh Ram is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.88,100/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in his 2.479 hectares of land. The op no.1 insurance company is liable to pay the said claim amounts to the complainants being insurer of crop of complainants because it received insurance premiums from complainants through ops no.3 and 4 and has not denied the factum of insurance of cotton crop of complainants of kharif, 2016.
13. 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.71,894/- to complainant no.1, amount of Rs.1,04,270/- to complainant no.2 and amount of Rs.88,100/- to complainant no.3 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainants 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.15,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainants in equal share within above said stipulated period of 45 days. However, complaint qua remaining ops no.2 to 4 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.
