BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 83 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 08.04.2021.
Date of Decision : 09.10.2024.
Chhotu Ram aged about 57 years son of Shri Nand Ram, resident of village Kheowali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. State Bank of India, G.T. Road, Sirsa, Odhan Branch, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025, through its authorized signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Vinay Gandhi, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 48 kanals situated in village Kheowali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 and said land is mortgaged with op no.1 vide loan account no. 36900317522. The complainant sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 season in his above said 48 kanals of land and op no.1 got insured the said crop of complainant with op no.2 by deducting premium amount of Rs.3204.60 on 28.07.2017. However, the average yield from the said crop remained quite below than threshold yield, therefore, farmers of village Kheowali received insurance claim amount from the banks in the month of June/ July, 2018 but complainant did not receive any claim amount from any of ops and ops denied to pay any compensation about six months ago and as such ops have caused gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment and as such complainant is entitled to get claim amount alongwith interest. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant intended to get the crop sown in his fields insured with op no.2 company under PMFBY and accordingly at the asking of complainant and on his behalf, the op bank debited a sum of Rs.3204.60 on 28.07.2017 in the account of complainant being the amount of crop premium for payment of same to op no.2. In this way, the crop was got insured by complainant himself with op no.2 and not by answering op. The op bank only released/ paid the amount of premium from the account of complainant to op no.2 on his behalf. The matter regarding insurance of crop or loss/ damage to the crop is in between complainant and op no.2. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that general details i.e. account number, father’s name, bank name, the farmer is not traceable in the Government of India Portal for which the insurance company is neither responsible nor liable. As per clause 35.5.2.7 it is the responsibility of the bank that data is timely uploaded on the portal failing which the bank shall be liable to pay the claim of deprived farmers. That no intimation ever received regarding the loss of crop from the complainant as well as any other agencies. However, the claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss occurred due to Rains but the same is not leading to Inundation which is covered for loss under the scheme and complainant has made a false, bogus and baseless story just to grab the compensation. 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 of concerned related to the scheme. The complainant 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 this, complainant has approached this Commission 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.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Pawandeep Manager as Ex.R1 and statement of account Ex.R2. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities including last opportunities and therefore, evidence of op no.2 was closed by order.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. The complainant in order to prove loss to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in his agricultural land has placed on file report of Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa as Ex.C5 according to which the average yield of cotton crop of village Kheowali in Kharif, 2017 was 347.46 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Odhan was 639.18 Kgs. per hectare. So, it is proved on record that as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss of cotton crop in village Kheowali and there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in kharif, 2017 season. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 was Rs.69,000/- per hectare. So as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.75,500/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in his 48 kanals of land. The op no.2 insurance company has taken the plea that detail/ data of the complainant is not traceable in the Government of India Portal and as data of complainant was not uploaded on the portal by op no.1 bank, therefore, op no.2 is not responsible to pay any claim to the complainant and only op no.1 bank is responsible in this regard. The op no.1 bank has failed to place on record any document regarding entry/ uploading of data of complainant on the portal. However, op no.1 bank has proved on record that consolidated premium amounts of the farmers including premium amount of complainant was paid to op no.2 insurance company for insurance of their crop of Kharif, 2017 and has placed on record list of farmers and transaction document. So, it is proved on record that premium amount of complainant was paid to op no.2 by op no.1 for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and there is nothing on file to prove the fact that op no.2 insurance company has returned the premium amount of complainant to op no.1 bank or to the complainant. Since the op no.1 bank has failed to upload the data of complainant on portal and op no.2 insurance company has failed to return the premium of complainant and has retained the same with it, therefore, both the ops are equally liable to pay the claim amount of Rs.75,500/- to the complainant in equal share.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the both the ops to pay the claim amount of Rs.75,500/- to the complainant jointly in equal share within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the claim amount of Rs.75,500/- from the ops alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.5000/- each) as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President
Dt. 09.10.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
