BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 113 of 2018
Date of Institution : 02.04.2018
Date of Decision : 18.09.2019.
Ladhu Ram son of Shri Ravta Ram, resident of V.P.O. Shakkar Mandori, District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, SCO 147-148, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.
2. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Haryana.
3. Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS) through its Manager, Nathusari Kalan, District Sirsa, Haryana.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………..MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rakesh Kashnia, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO on behalf of opposite party no.2.
Opposite party no.3 exparte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that he is farmer by profession. The complainant is having his account with op no.3 bearing account number 100335 and got mortgaged his shares of land which is approximately 9.5 acres in Khewat No.158 of village Shakker Mandori. That as per the Government Notification, after the introduction of crop insurance scheme, every farmer was informed by the concerned bank to give the details of their crop for the season so that the crop can be insured against the various natural calamities. It is further averred that complainant got insured his crop of cotton in 6.5 acres and maize in three acres according to which the premium of Rs.3759/- was deducted from his account and was deposited with op no.1 by op no.3. That the complainant got the amount of insurance transferred in his account as a result of damage to the crop of maize. It is further averred that in the year 2016, the cotton crop of complainant was completely damaged due to white fly and other natural calamity which was fully covered under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. That complainant informed about the damage of crop to ops no.2 and 3 and op no.2 alongwith other officials of agriculture department and op no.1 visited the complainant’s field and prepared their report stating that crop has been really damaged. That as per report of Agriculture Department, the complainant is eligible for the sum assured i.e. Rs.24,000/- per acre alongwith interest @18% per annum but the opposite party no.1 has not paid the insurance claim to the complainant despite his several requests and visits to the ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. OP no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections and explained about the scheme. While explaining about the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna in detail, it is submitted that it is clarified 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. Other preliminary regarding not maintainability for want of jurisdiction on the ground that complainant should have approached before DAC & DW department and non intimation, consideration of block yield, block yield is greater than threshold yield, non submission of proof of loss or weather report, limited coverage as per scheme, no survey no quantification of loss, privity of contract and impleading of necessary parties are also taken. On merits, it is also submitted that present case of complainant is not eligible for individual or Farmer Level survey, as the aforesaid farmers have intimated the crop damage due to ‘white fly’ which is not attributable to localized or notified risks as per operational guidelines. The insurance company is playing a role of implementing agency in the scheme and cannot go beyond the terms and conditions of scheme of insurance. However, yield basis claims are settled by insurance company upon receiving of yield from government agencies and completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme. The present case of complainant is not clear about nature of loss. It is further submitted that the policy provided that there has to be minimum of four crop cutting experiments that have to take place in a village. Initially the yield would be lower and then higher and then would go lower. Hence, at least four pickings have to be carried out and just two samples being taken at a short duration shall not provide the result of the yield and in the village Shakker Mandori only two pickings took place. It is further submitted that complaint is not maintainable on the ground that block yield is greater than threshold yield which does not make insurance company liable for any claim under the scheme. The threshold yield provided by Government at the time of policy coverage for block Nathusari was 606.78 only whereas actual average yield for loss of cotton crop provided by government is 622.26 which establishes that farmers are not eligible for any claim under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made for.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its separate written statement also took preliminary objections as that of op no.1. It is submitted that answering op is only liable to conduct the survey of loss and prepare the report and same has been done by op no.2 well within prescribed time period and same is admitted by complainants and same has been forwarded for necessary action. It is up to higher authorities as well as insurance company, who has power to disburse the claim of complainants. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
4. Opposite party no.3 failed to appear despite notice sent through registered cover and was proceeded against exparte.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9. OP no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture Ex.R1 and copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. OP no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur as Ex.R5 and copies of documents Ex.R6 to Ex.R39.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved case of complainant that complainant is owner of agricultural land detailed in complaint and holding KCC account with the opposite party no.3 bank. The complainant had raised agricultural crop loan of cotton for the kharif 2016 from op no.3. As per operational guidelines of the Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and notification of the Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, crop insurance was compulsory for loanee who had raised agricultural loan. The premium was deducted from the account of complainant by op no.3 which was paid by op no.3 to op no.1. The cotton crop of complainant was damaged for kharif 2016 due to climatic condition and white fly. Due intimation was given to ops and officials of ops no.1 and 2 visited at spot, surveyed and assessed the loss after following the procedure laid down under the provisions of notification and as per guidelines of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It has also been contended that crop of complainant was damaged. The agriculture department has submitted the report by which threshold yield of block Nathusari has been assessed as 606.78 Kgs. and the average yield of village Shakkar Mandori has been assessed at 247.38 Kgs. The complainant is entitled to compensation on the basis of the report of agricultural department and there is deficiency of service on the part of ops by not paying compensation to the complainant.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 has strongly contended that complaint of complainant is not maintainable as complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. There is no privity of contract between complainant and op no.1. No intimation of loss was given to op no.1. There is no liability of op no.1 to pay any compensation to the complainant. As per report of the Agricultural Department, the threshold yield of block Nathusari was 606.78 and the average yield of the block was 622.26. Since the average yield is higher than the threshold yield, as such op no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of op no.1. It has also been contended that while assessing the yield, the agricultural department has counted only two pickings and has not taken into consideration four pickings while assessing the yield. Moreover, loss of crop of village has been claimed by complainant, but however as per guidelines of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, the crop cutting experiment is to be made of the block. So, complaint of complainant is liable to be dismissed.
9. Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO on behalf of op no.2 has contended that present complaint is not maintainable against op no.2 and there is no liability of op no.2. Premium was paid to op no.1 by op no.3. The only obligation of op no.2 was to assess threshold yield and average yield after following the procedure laid down under guidelines of the PMFBY and notification issued by Under Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department. The statistics of the threshold yield and the average yield qua the block level as well as village level have already been submitted by op no.2 to the Director Agriculture Haryana and there is no liability of op no.2 to pay any compensation to the complainant. The threshold yield of block Nathusari is 606.78 and the average yield of village unit of Shakkar Mandori is 247.38 and the agricultural department has already written number of letters to op no.1 to pay compensation to the complainant and other farmers of village Shakkar Mandori and even in the meeting held under the chairmanship of Director, Agriculture Haryana, the officials of the insurance company were duly requested to pay compensation to the farmers of village Shakkar Mandori but to no effect.
10. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
11. It is an undisputed fact between the parties that complainant is holding agriculture land in village Shakkar Mandori and is also holding KCC account with op no.3. It is also undisputed fact that complainant had raised agricultural crop loans for the cotton crop Kharif, 2016 from opposite party no.3 and got his land mortgaged with the bank. As per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and notification issued by State Govt. of Haryana agricultural department, the crop insurance for the loanee farmers was compulsory as a result of which the complainant got his cotton crop insured and premium of the insurance was deducted by op no.3 from KCC account of complainant which is evident from the copy of statement of accounts placed on record by complainant. It is also not in dispute that premium amount deducted by op no.3 from the account of complainant was transferred to op no.1 by op no.3 for insurance of the crop of complainant.
12. From the facts and evidence on record, it is proved fact that after receiving the premium from complainant through op bank, the kharif crop of cotton of complainant was duly insured with op no.1. It is also a proved fact on record that cotton crop of farmers like complainants of village Shakkar Mandori was damaged due to climatic condition and white fly and due intimation was given to the agricultural department. The agricultural department after receiving intimation of damage of crop visited village Shakkar Mandori alongwith officials of the insurance company. They followed the procedure of pickings of crop by conducting crop cutting experiment as per guidelines laid down under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and the provisions of clause 12 of the notification dated 17.6.2016 and they submitted their report to their higher authorities of agricultural department. As per report of the agricultural department, they have assessed threshold yield of cotton crop kharif 2016 at 606.78 and average yield of village Shakkar Mandori at 247.38 Kgs. per hectare. As per this report of agricultural department, the farmers of village Shakkar Mandori like complainant who got their cotton crop kharif 2016 insured with op no.1 deserves to be entitled for the damage of the crop and are entitled for compensation.
13. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.1 has strongly contended that as per report of agricultural department, the threshold yield is 606.78 and average yield of block Nathusari is 622.26, as such the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation since he has not suffered any loss. No doubt, as per report of agricultural department, the block threshold yield is 606.78 and average yield of the block Nathusari is 622.26, but it is very pertinent to mention here that the average yield of village Shakkar Mandori is 247.38 as reported by agricultural department as per guidelines of PMFBY and clause 12 of the notification dated 17.6.2016 issued by agricultural department which provides the procedure for assessing the loss. Clause 12 (b) of the notification dated 17.6.2016 is reproduced as under:-
b) Standing Crop (Wide Spread Calamities)
i) Shortfall in yield will be calculated by comparing the Threshold Yield with the Actual Yield estimated through Crop Cutting Experiments (CCEs). The CCEs will be undertaken for different crops on a scale decided by the State Government keeping in view the acreage covered in the scheme in different IUs/ Blocks/ district/ State.
ii) In cases where require number of CCEs could not be conducted due to non-availability of adequate cropped area, the yield estimate for such IUs will be made by adopting the yield of next higher unit i.e. block. If the area in the block is also inadequate, the yield of the district will be adopted. If the area in the district is also inadequate, the yield of the nearest district will be adopted.
14. Since, as per report of the agricultural department, the crop cutting experiment was duly conducted in village Shakkar Mandori and damage was assessed and thereafter the average yield was assessed to the tune of 247.38 Kgs, so question of taking into consideration the block average yield does not arise. So, it is apparently clear that farmers are entitled to compensation on the basis of report submitted by agricultural department by which the threshold yield has been shown as 606.78 and average yield of village has been shown as 247.38.
15. Though from the evidence of opposite party no.1 it appears that after submission of report by agricultural department to their higher authorities by which threshold yield of block was shown as 606.78 and average yield of village was shown as 247.38, op no.1 did not come forward to challenge report of agricultural department nor they raised any protest as a result of which same had become final between the parties. Further more, the copy of the minutes of meeting of the Director Agriculture reveals that officials of insurance company had attended the meeting but however they did not raise any protest against the report by which threshold yield of block and average yield of village Shakkar Mandori was assessed. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has contended that compensation has been paid to other farmers of village Shakkar Mandori and of nearby villages on the basis of assessment of the average yield of their respective villages.
16. Since it was only obligation of the agricultural department to conduct survey after receiving intimation of damage and to conduct crop cutting experiment and submit their report, as such present complaint for claiming compensation from op no.2 does not appear to be maintainable against op no.2. Similarly, there is no liability of op no.3 also as op no.3 only deducted the premium and paid the same to op no.1. As such complaint against ops no.2 and 3 stands dismissed.
17. In view of above, we partly allow the present complaint against opposite party no.1 and direct the opposite party no.1 to settle and pay the claim of the complainant on the basis of the report of agricultural department at par with all other farmers who got their crop insured through respective banks with op no.1 for the cotton crop kharif 2016 and get credited the amount of loss in their KCC accounts, after due verification. We further direct the op no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The op no.1 is liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainants will be entitled to interest @7% per annum on the claim amount from the date of order till actual realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:18.09.2019. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum Sirsa.
