BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 694 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 28.11.2019.
Date of Decision : 29.07.2022.
Satpal (aged 38 years) son of Sh. Luna Ram, resident of village Mamar Khera, Post Office Keharwala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. State Bank of India, Branch Near Old Bus Stand, Sirsa Road Rania, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. State Bank of India, Head Office, 18-19, Devdas, Kamlleg Block, Synergy Building, Bandra Kurla, Complex- Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051 through its authorized Signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist having land measuring 103 kanals 4 marlas 2 sarsai of his share (as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) situated in village Mammar Khera, Tehsil Rania District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017. The complainant has availed KCC/ crop loan facility from op no.1 vide account No.32862907113 and Government of India has launched crop insurance scheme known as Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for insurance of crop of loanee as well as non loanee farmers and as such complainant also desired to op no.1 to get his crop of Kharif, 2018 insured from insurance company. It is further averred that on 28.07.2018, op no.1 had deducted a sum of Rs.6782/- from the above said account of complainant against the premium with the assurance that his crop of Kharif, 2018 i.e. Narma crop has been insured under the said scheme against any kind of damage due to natural calamities. The complainant also submitted all kind of relevant and necessary documents to op no.1 including copy of Nehri Girdawari etc. on demand made by op no.1. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2018 was damaged on account of natural calamities and as such complainant approached op no.1 and requested to indemnify his claim but the bank authorities kept on avoiding the request of complainant on one false pretext or the other and despite several requests ultimately the bank authorities have flatly refused to indemnify the claim of complainant saying that complainant is not entitled to compensation and ops refunded the premium amount of Rs.6782/- in the account of complainant on 3.5.2019 which is wrong, illegal and against law. The complainant is legally entitled to get compensation as other farmers have already received compensation for damage to their crop of cotton. The act and conduct of the ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared and filed reply raising preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per the term of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY), which was launched by Hon’ble Prime Minister on 13.02.2016, for the farmers who have sought crop loan from any Financial Institutions, it was mandatory for the Banks to insure all the borrowers under the scheme. The premium of the insurance was to be deducted from the account and was to be paid to the insurance company by the Bank. In the present case, the Bank has debited the amount of premium from the account of the complainant and has credited the same to the account of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. All the information required by the insurance company was to be sent to them as per rules, but the same could not be uploaded in the portal of the insurance company for want of aadhar card in the account of the complainant. The answering op bank had advertised several times with the appeal to the farmers to submit their aadhar cards in their accounts. It is further submitted that after the debit of amount of premium in the account of the complainant, the complainant was advised to deposit the aadhar card with the Bank as insurance was necessary on the instructions from Govt. of India, but he failed to deposit the same for the reason known to him. As such, the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint against the answering op. It is further submitted that information could not be uploaded in the portal of the insurance company for want of aadhar card, as such the insurance company was requested with several repeated reminders to refund the amount of the above said premium amount, which was debited in the account of the complainant and after receiving the same from the insurance company was remitted back in the account of the complainant. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied, pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, copy of pass book Ex.P1, copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.P2, copy of statement of account Ex.P3, letter of bank Ex.P4, khasra girdawari Ex.P5 and letter of Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare department, Sirsa Ex.P6.
5. Ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Kaushal Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex.R1, copy of statement of account Ex.R2 and copy of transaction enquiry Ex.R3.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. The basic requirement for the complainant for seeking insurance claim for the damage of crop is to prove damage to the crop. In this regard, oral averments of complainant in his complaint as well as in affidavit needs to be supported with documentary proof and without any documentary evidence, simple oral assertion of complainant cannot be believed. Though complainant has placed on file report/ letter of Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa issued to complainant as Ex.P6 wherein it is mentioned that average yield of cotton crop in 2018 was 398.83 Kgs. per hectare but in this only document produced on record by complainant it is not mentioned that as average yield was 398.83 Kgs. per hectare in village Mammarkhera, there was loss of cotton crop in village Mammarkhera. The complainant has not placed on file any other report to prove loss to his crop. To prove the loss to the crop of complainant, the complainant was to place on file report of agriculture department regarding threshold yield of block of his village to compare loss of crop in his village but complainant has failed to do so. So, it cannot be said that above said yield of 398.83 Kgs. of cotton crop in village Mammarkhera was less than threshold yield of block of village Mammarkhera. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove on record actual loss to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018. Further more, though complainant has alleged that co-owner of complainant namely Ranjeet Singh son of Jai Narayan has received compensation of Rs.1,05,099/- on 18.06.2019 and has also averred that copy of his statement of account is attached but complainant has not produced any statement of account of said Ranjeet Singh. So oral assertion of complainant without any document proof in this regard is also not proved on record. Moreover, complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation on account of damage to his crop but he has failed to prove on record that on what basis he calculated the above said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for loss of crop in 103 kanals 4 marlas and 2 sarsai of land. He has not placed on file any document regarding sum insured and regarding assessment of loss of crop and since complainant has failed to prove basic requirement of the case i.e. damage to his cotton crop, therefore, he is not entitled to any claim amount.
8. In view of above discussion, we find no 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 free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 29.07.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
