Haryana

Karnal

CC/504/2020

Rambir - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Anshul Chaudhary

03 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.504 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.10.11.2020

                                                        Date of Decision: 03.09.2024

 

Rambir son of Shri Jaswant Singh, resident of village Shahpur, District Karnal. Aadhar no.8941 6510 6101.

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. SBI General Insurance Company through its Branch Manager, SCO no.388-389, Karan Commercial Complex, near Guru Har Kishan School Old Char Chaman, Karnal.
2. Punjab National Bank Chirao, District Karnal.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

 Argued by: Sh. Anshul Chaudhary, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Hanumant Singh, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is agriculturist by profession. The complainant is having agriculture land situated within the revenue estate of village Shahpur, District Karnal. The Central Government of India launched a scheme under the name and style of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” under which the crops of the farmers were insured. The objective of the said scheme was to provide insurance coverage and Financial Support to the farmers in the event of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities. The risk covered under the scheme was landslide, hailstorm and inundation. The crop of the complainant was also insured under the abovesaid scheme by deducting the amount of premium from his account maintained with OP no.2 by the OP no.1. The OP no.2 is deducting the premium amount from the bank account of the complainant regularly. The complainant had sown the paddy crop in his 10 acres of land. The crop of the complainant was damaged. The complainant also moved an application dated 28.02.2020 before the Deputy Director Agriculture in this regard but no has been taken on the said application. The family of the complainant is totally dependents upon the agriculture produces. However, because of loss of his crop due to heavy rain, the family of complainant suffered huge loss. Complainant visited the office of OPs several times and requested to pay the compensation of damaged crop but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- per acre as compensation for damages of crop and to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for causing mental pain, agony and harassment etc.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that no documentary evidence regarding policy particular/application number/claim lodging/surveyor details is mentioned/supplied by the complainant and accordingly the OP is not able to identify the dispute raised by the complainant. In the absence of any application of insurance and other details, OP is unable to trace any information regarding the claim. The bank details of complainant lies with the Banker of complainant and does not in any manner help the OP to trace the dispute/controversy. It is further pleaded that crop insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna which operates on area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as on insurance unit. For all major crops, insurance unit is Gram Panchayat and for minor crops, insurance unit is Taluk. It is further pleaded that Threshold Yield (TY) kilogram/hectare is fixed for every insurance unit. Actual yield (AY) kilogram/hectare of an insurance unit is calculated by the government taking samples from respective insurance unit at the time of harvesting of the crop through crop cutting experiments (CCEs) which are conducted by State Government. All the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claims is furnished by the government and accordingly the insurance company only calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Provision of operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna vide clause XI: Assessment of loss/shortfall in yield, sub clause 10: Assessment of Claims (Wide Spread Calamities)

“If ‘Actual Yield’ (AY) per hectare of insured crop for the insurance unit (calculated on basis of requisite number of CCEs) in insured season, falls short of specified “Threshold Yield” (TY), all insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in yield of similar magnitude. PMFBY seeks to provide coverage against such contingency.

‘Claim’ shall be calculated as per the following formula:

(Threshold Yield- Actual Yield)

Threshold yieldX Sum insured.

 

It is further pleaded that complainant has not placed on record any assessment report regarding the loss of crop.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that after deduction of premium amount of said PMFBY within time, the OP no.2 on 30.12.2019 with immediate effect that sent premium amount in the account of the insurance company and further procedure and proceedings was of the insurance company vide Transaction ID no.PUNB52019123011073965/SBI General Insurance Company Limited, so there is no fault on the part of the bank/OP no.2. The insurance Company has not returned the premium amount of policy to the bank, if any discrepancies were thereon. So, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation if any, to the complainant. There is no fault on the part of the OP no.2, so the question of giving compensation by the OP no.2 does not arise at all.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP  and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1/A, copy of bank passbook Ex.C2, copy of application dated 28.02.2020 to Deputy Director Agriculture, Karnal Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 26.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nishant Gera Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 16.10.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit Sachin Makkar Branch Manager Ex.OP2/A, copy of account statement Ex.OP1, copy of  statement of account Manager Imprest Account 2018 Ex.OP2, copy of  statement of account Manager Imprest Account 2019 Ex.OP3, copy of minutes of meetings Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 16.10.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned for the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is having ten acres of land and got insured his crop with OP no.1 (insurance company) through OP no.2 Bank under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The crop of the complainant was damaged due to natural disaster. So, the complainant was/is entitled for compensation under the abovesaid scheme but insurance company has not given the compensation on account of loss in his crop and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.  

10.           Learned counsel for OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that no documentary evidence regarding policy particular details was supplied by the complainant. In the absence of any application of insurance and other details, OP was unable to trace any information regarding the claim. He further argued that all the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claim is furnished by the government and accordingly the insurance company only calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that after deduction of premium amount, under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, OP no.2 had remitted premium in the account of insurance company, so there is no fault on the part of the bank and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP no.2.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           The complainant has alleged that he is an agriculturist, having ten acres of land. In the year 2019, the paddy crop of the complainant was damaged due to heavy rainfall, in this regard he intimated to the OPs but no compensation of loss has been paid by the OPs.  The Onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant, but complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on the file that complainant was having ten acres of land and sown paddy crop in the alleged land. Complainant not placed on file copy of Revenue Record (jamabandi) and copy of khasra girdwari of the land to establish that he was having agriculture land and had sown paddy crop in the said land. Complainant also failed to prove the damage of the crop as alleged. There is nothing on the file that crop of the complainant had  damaged due to heavy rainfall. Complainant has relied upon mail Ex.C1, copy of passbook Ex.C2, copy of application Ex.C3 dated 28.02.2020 and copy of legal notice Ex.C4, except these documents complainant has neither placed on file documentary evidence to prove his case.  Hence, present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated:03.09.2024

         President,

      District Consumer Disputes                           

      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                   ( Neeru Agarwal)            (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                        Member                        Member