BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 88 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 19.04.2021.
Date of Decision : 19.07.2024.
Pushpa Devi aged about 28 years wife of Pawan Kumar, resident of village Bacher, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. State Bank of India Branch Kaluana, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa through Branch Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Opposite Janta Bhawan Sirsa through its Manager being Insurer of the complainant.
3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. LIC Building (2nd Floor) Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt., Haryana – 133001 through its Regional Officer/ Officer in Charge of the Haryana Region.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. N.S. Yadav, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
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 she is having agricultural land in the revenue estate of village Bacher, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa which has been mortgaged with op no.1 under Kisan Credit Card scheme of the Government and she is having her account bearing no. 37025254035 with op no.1. That as per crop insurance scheme of the Government, complainant paid premium amount of Rs.2112/- on 30.07.2018 from her account to ops no.2 and 3 for insurance of her Kharif crop of 2018 and as such her crop was got insured with ops no.2 and 3. That in April, 2019 farmers of adjoining villages were given claim for the loss/ damage of their crop in their respective accounts. It is further averred that average outcome of the crop of the area was almost same and which was below average but complainant was not paid any claim for the loss of her crop by any of the ops despite her best efforts. That her co-villager in the month of October, 2020 sought information under RTI from Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa whose reply reflected that average outcome of the crop of village Bacher was sufficient for getting insurance claim but the ops have caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service by not paying any claim to her. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that crop of complainant was insured with ops no.2 and 3 after debiting a sum of Rs.2112/- on 30.07.2018 in the KCC account of complainant. The answering op after deducting the said amount as insurance premium from the account of complainant remitted the same to ops no.2 and 3. The coverage of risks to the insured crops were/ are subject to relevant terms and conditions of the insurance company and answering op has no role to play therein. The only responsibility of the answering op to deduct the amount of insurance premium and to remit the same to the insurance company which was duly discharged by answering op. It is further submitted that answering op submitted the relevant papers relating to the land holding of complainant to insurance company which were supplied by the complainant to the answering op. As per norms of the policy, the insurance company after insurance of the crop of a farmer had to verify the physical data by visiting the spot. So, the existence of standing crop at the spot was to be verified by the insurance company. It is further submitted that at the time of moving the loan application, the complainant had mentioned and disclosed in her loan application about the crops standing at the spot, but thereafter the complainant never intimated the bank about the change of crop over her mortgaged land, if any. The answering op did not get any information/ intimation about the damages to the crops of complainant and complainant also did not give any intimation to answering op about the damage to her crop. However, the insurance claim was to be paid by insurance company and answering op had nothing to do with the same. It is further submitted that no loss has been caused to the complainant. If any loss has been caused and proved then op no.2 insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Ops no.2 and 3 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no loss to cotton crop of kharif, 2018 belonging to complainant in village Bacher uploaded by op no.1 as no loss of cotton crop has been reported by the agriculture department, State Govt. or by the bank during the coverage period of insurance from answering op. It is further submitted that if op bank has uploaded the wrong crop, village in that eventuality, it is the dispute in between complainant and bank and answering op cannot be held liable for the wrong committed by the bank and this wrong has never been corrected by the bank or farmers within the stipulated period on the portal. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
7. The complainant has not mentioned in her complaint that she is having how much of agricultural land. In the report of agriculture department attached with letter Ex.C1 it is mentioned that average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in village Bacher was 929.90 Kgs. per hectare and there is nothing on file to prove any loss to the cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in village Bacher as no threshold yield of block has been placed on record by complainant. Since the average yield of village Bacher was 929.90 Kgs. per hectare, it cannot be said at all that there was total loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2018 rather as the average yield of cotton crop of village Bacher in Kharif, 2018 was 929.90 Kgs. per hectare, it cannot be said that there was loss to the cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in village Bacher. Though she has sought claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 but she has not explained any criteria for claiming such claim amount. She has not mentioned that she is having how much agricultural land and she has also not proved that what was threshold yield of block. As such complainant has failed to prove on record any loss to her cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 through any cogent and convincing evidence. So, we are of the opinion that complainant is not entitled to any claim amount from any of the ops.
8. 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.
Announced: Member President
Dt. 19.07.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
