BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 55 of 2020.                                                                          

                                                           Date of Institution :    04.02.2020

                                                          Date of Decision   :    15.06.2023.

Tara Chand (aged 47 years) son of Sh. Atam Parkash, resident of village Dhaban, Tehsil and District Sirsa.                                                                                                                                                                                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

Sarav Haryana Gramin Bank, Village Buppan,  Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Branch  Manager.

                                                                ...…Opposite party.

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:       SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….MEMBER

                   SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………..MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Jagat Mehta, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party.

.                                                                           

ORDER

                   In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist having agricultural land in his village and in year 2012 he had availed agriculture loan facility from op bank under KCC scheme as he is having his account number 81088800012037 with op bank. The said loan was enhanced in the year 2017.  It is further aqverred that as per Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, on 29.07.2017 the op bank had deducted premium amount of Rs.455.81 from his account for insurance of his crop of 2017 but the employee of the bank negligently had written the crop as paddy instead of cotton crop. That apart from this mistake, its employee had also not provided proper information of insurance to the complainant. It is further averred that the cotton crop of complainant of 2017 was damaged but due to above said wrong entry the complainant did not receive any compensation of his damaged crop. The complainant had sown cotton crop in his 21 kanals 01 marlas land and is entitled to the claim amount of Rs.28,875/- from op. It is further averred that complainant also sought information under RTI Act about his loss etc. but op bank had also not supplied proper and full information to the complainant and is deficient in service. The complainant also got served a legal notice to the op on 11.12.2019 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.       On notice, op appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that on the asking of complainant, the answering op has got his paddy crop of kharif, 2017 as declared by him insured with the insurance company and accordingly a sum of Rs.455.81 has been deducted from the loan account of complainant on 29.07.2017 on account of insurance premium and same has been transferred to the account of insurance company. It is further submitted that answering op has not charged any penny for itself on account of any insurance of crops of complainant. It is wrong that answering op has negligently written paddy crop instead of Narma crop. However, it is liability of insurance company to indemnify the loss of the complainant if any, because the crops of complainant has been insured with the insurance company which has charged insurance premium on account of insurance of the crops of complainant. It is further submitted that complainant himself has declared paddy crop to be sown by him in his field and requested the answering op to get the paddy crop insured with insurance company and thereafter only the paddy crop of complainant has been got insured. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

3.       The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A documents Ex.C1 to Ex. C20.

4.       On the other hand, op bank has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sonu Kumar, Manager as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.     

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.       The complainant has claimed insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 whereas it is the specific plea of the op bank that complainant himself declared that he will sow paddy crop in kharif season and accordingly paddy crop of complainant of kharif, 2017 was got insured by op bank with insurance company.  In this regard op bank has also placed on file assessment form for cash credit/ short term loan dated 29.12.2015 Ex.R3 in which complainant himself declared that from July to November i.e. in Kharif season he will sow paddy crop in his land and therefore, at the viability of paddy crop loan amount was sanctioned and granted to the complainant. There is nothing on file to suggest that complainant ever intimated the op bank about change of crop i.e. from paddy to cotton crop in kharif season. In reply dated 27.12.2019 Ex.C15 to the legal notice also, the op bank replied to the counsel for complainant that complainant himself declared his crops to be sown by him in Kharif i.e. July to November as paddy crop and in the presence of complainant op bank has paid a sum of Rs.455.81 on 29.07.2017 to the insurance company after debiting the same in the loan account. Since complainant himself declared that he will sow paddy crop in kharif season and has not informed the op  bank through any letter/ application that he has changed the pattern of crop, therefore, op bank got insured paddy crop of complainant and paid insurance premium amount to insurance company for insuring paddy crop of complainant. Since, no cotton crop of complainant was insured and for which no premium amount was paid to insurance company, therefore, complainant cannot claim insurance claim for the damage to his cotton crop. Further more, as premium amount was deducted by op bank for paddy crop on the declaration of the complainant and there is no report about loss of paddy crop and cotton crop of complainant was not insured, therefore, complainant is not entitled any claim amount. Even the complainant in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A has not stated a single word that he has not availed any crop loan for paddy crop and he is not getting that crop loan facility for paddy crop and is getting for cotton crop. Since the complainant has availed crop loan at the viability of paddy crop which is more than cotton crop and has not informed the op bank about the change of crop, as such complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct. Moreover, insurance company with which crop of complainant was got insured by op bank has not been impleaded as a party by the complainant and therefore, complaint is also bad for non joinder of necessary party.

7.       In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby 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 after due compliance. 

Announced :                            Member      Member                          President,

Dated: 15.06.2023.                                                                  District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                      Redressal Commission, Sirsa.