BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 185 of 2017
Date of Institution : 28.07.2017.
Date of Decision : 27.02.2019.
- Jai Singh son of Shri Rameti son of Shri Banwari Lal
- Daya Ram son of Shri Rameti son of Banwari Lal
Residents of village Gudia Khera, Tehsil & District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
- State Bank of India, Branch at village Madhosinghana, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Reliance Centre, South Wing, 4th Floor, Off. Western Express Highway Santacruz (East) Mumbai 400055.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER.
MS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Babbar, Advocate for opposite party No.1
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
The complainants have filed an application under Section 12 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act seeking permission to file joint complaint which was allowed and permission to file joint complaint was granted.
2. Brief facts, of the complaint are, as under:
The complainants are agriculturists by profession and are having 14 acres (7 acres each) of agriculture land. They have sown cotton crop in 7 acres of land belonging to Jai Singh and also sown paddy crop in 7 acres of Daya Ram. They have irrigated and maintained the respective crops very well and properly watered the plants besides using of fertilizers etc. from time to time and they were hoping for good fruits out of the said crops. The crops of the complainants were insured by the Op No.1 under the policy of Central Government namely “Kisan Fasal Bima Yojna” which was having tie up with Op No.2 to deal with the Crop Insurance of the farmers. The insured sum for the crop damage compensation was Rs.60,000/- per hectare i.e. Rs.24,000/- per acre. The premium regarding the insurance of the crops was deducted by Op No.1 from the account of the complainants as they were having loan facility. The whole cotton and paddy crops suffered the damage and regarding this intimation was given to the Ops. The complainants were entitled for compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per hectare for the total loss being sum insured but the Ops have only paid Rs.8502/- in favour of complainant No.1/Jai Singh and Rs.22117/- in favour of complainant No.2/Daya Ram. The Ops have paid meager amount qua the damages suffered by the whole of the crops of the complainant, therefore, they requested the Ops to make the compensation as per the loss of the crops but they did not pay any heed. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. OP No.1 filed in its reply has submitted that the complainants have only provided the Khasra Girdawari while obtaining the loan facility and no further record has been provided to it. Each and every farmer has to protect their crops for their own benefits. The premium for the crop insurance was deducted from the loan account of the complainants. The Op No.1 has to recover the loan amount in legal way as per agreed terms and conditions and it is not competent to assess the loss, if any, and is also not liable for any compensation. Objections about estopal, maintainability and cause of action have been taken. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of replying OP as the admissible claim has already been paid to the complainants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme and no further liability remains at the end of replying OP. The complainants are trying to get extra claim even after receipt of the claim amount without any cogent evidence. The complainants have never intimated the claim to the insurance company for the loss of paddy crop. However, loss of cotton and Bajra were reported which have already been paid in accordance with the terms and conditions. As per the guidelines of scheme immediate intimation was to be given within 48 hours but the complainants have not intimated regarding this, therefore, survey of damaged field could not be got done. Apart from the intimation, the complainants have not also supplied any proof for loss or weather index etc. As per scheme of insurance only localized claims were to be decided by the insurance company and other risks of coverage were to be handled by government agencies by finalizing yield of crop but in the present case it is not clear about the nature of loss and the quantification of the loss cannot be determined in the absence of survey. There is no privity of contract with the complainants as insurance scheme has been provided to the bank and consideration has also been received from the bank. The compensation has already been paid on account of loss of insured crops. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. The complainant has produced affidavit Ex.C1, wherein all the facts mentioned in the complaints have reiterated, Statements of account Ex.C2 to Ex.C6, and copy of jamabandi Ex.C7. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit of Smt.Santosh Bishnoi, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Madhosinghana, Sirsa Ex.RW1/A, reiterating the pleas taken in the reply, copies of khasra girdhwaris Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. The Op No.2 has produced affidavit of Suryadeep Singh Thakur Ex.RW2/B and deposed as per the stand taken in the reply to the compliant, Survey Visit Forms Ex.R1 & Ex.R2, proformas showing details of complainants Ex.R3 & Ex.R4, Spot Survey information report Ex.R5, statement regarding paying of admissible claim Ex.R6.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. That complainants have filed the complaint with the averments that the complainants are farmers by profession and are owners of 14 acres of land (7 acres each). They have sown their respective crops in their respective lands. The crops were insured by the Op No.2 through Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- per hectare (Rs.24,000/- per acre) but the Ops have only paid Rs.8502/- to Jai Singh (complainant No.1) and Rs.22117/- to Daya Ram (complainant No.2) despite the fact that they were entitled for a sum of Rs.60,000/- per hectare for 14 acres of agriculture land.
8. But perusal of the case file reveals that the complainants have not mentioned the Killa numbers and Khasra numbers of the land in which they have sown their respective crops. The complainants have even not mentioned the year of crops nor have mentioned the amount of insurance paid to the complainants qua the crop which was allegedly got insured from Op No.1 or Op No.2. Though the complainants have produced jamabandi for the year 2012-13 on record which reflects that Jai Singh and Daya Ram are owners of certain land but this copy of jamabandi does not corroborate the pleadings of the complainants. Furthermore, the complainants have not placed on record copy of Khasra Girdhawari qua the crops which were damaged or for whom purpose they have claimed the compensation nor they have placed on record any such documents from which it could be presumed that the complainants have suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.60,000/- per hectare due to damage of crop. The complainants have also not placed on record any report of the Agriculture Department qua the loss of crops which was inspected and assessed by the Agriculture Department. On the other hand, the Op No.1 has specifically pleaded that they have already paid the compensation to the complainants for which they were found entitled and also produced copy of the statement regarding paying of admissible claim Ex.R6.
9. So, it appears from the evidence of the complainants that they have failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence in order to prove the allegations made in the complaint. The complaint is devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 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:27.02.2019. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
