BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 15 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 29.01.2021.
Date of Decision : 07.05.2024.
Gurdas Singh aged 63 years son of Shri Ajmer Singh, resident of village & PO Lakkarwali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. State Bank of India (earlier known as State Bank of Patiala), Kalanwali Branch, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 4th Floor, Plot No. 149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometell Hotel, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/ authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. D.C. Solanki, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Aulakh, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present joint 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 an agriculturist and is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring about five acres situated within the revenue estate of village Lakkarwali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa. The complainant raised crop loan under Kissan Credit Limit facility to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- from op no.1 through KCC account No. 652201209448 against mortgage of his agricultural land 32 kanals 01 marlas. That as per policy of Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna, for insurance of his kharif crop of 2017 op no.1 debited amount of Rs.2792.33 as insurance premium from the loan account of complainant and got insured his crop with op no.2 for sum insured amount of Rs.69,000/- per hectare. The complainant had sown cotton crop in his above said land in Kharif, 2017 which was destroyed due to climatic conditions. The Agriculture department had surveyed the fields of village Lakkarwali and as per survey report, the average yield of cotton crop in village Lakkarwali in Kharif 2017 season was 299.25 Kgs. per hectare against threshold yield of 639.18 Kgs. per hectare. The op no.3 thereafter settled the claim of other farmers of village Lakkarwali but very strangely left the complainant and did not pay any amount to him. It is further averred that op no.3 had paid compensation of Kharif 2017 crop to such farmers in the start of year 2019. That in this regard complainant contacted the Branch Manager of op no.1 and also to op no.2 and inquired about non payment of insurance claim but they did not give any satisfactory reply to him and since then he is approaching the ops and requesting for settlement of his claim but of no use. It is further averred that ultimately complainant moved application on CM Window on 15.05.2019 and 11.07.2019 and in reply to application the op no.2 replied that farmer not insured and thus the said application was disposed of without redressal of grievance of the complainant. That in this manner, the complainant due to gross negligence and deficiency in service of ops could not get compensation for his damaged crop of cotton and as such ops have caused unnecessary harassment to him. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.1 after debiting a sum of Rs.2792.33 for Kharif 2017 in the KCC account of complainant, the answering op remitted the same to insurance company op no.2. 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. The answering op submitted the relevant papers and other necessary data and details relating to the land holding of complainant to the insurance company which were supplied by complainant to answering op and claim was to be paid by insurance company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 did not appear despite delivery of notice sent through registered cover and as none appeared on behalf of op no.2, therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Avishek Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex.R1 and statement of account Ex.R2.
7. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for op no.1 and have gone through the case file.
8. The complainant in order to prove loss to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in his 32 kanals 01 marla has placed on file letter/ report of Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa as Ex.C13 in which it is reported that average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of village Lakranwali was 299.25 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Odhan was 639.18 Kgs. per hectare. Since the average yield of village remained below than threshold yield of block, therefore, as operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2017. Although op no.1 bank has stated that premium amount of Rs.2792.33 debited from the account of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 with op no.2 was paid to op no.2 but during proceedings held on C.M. Window, the insurance company replied that farmer is not insured and as such application of complainant was filed. Though op no.2 insurance company did not appear before this Commission and opted to be proceeded against exparte, but op no.1 bank has failed to prove on record through any cogent and convincing evidence that besides payment of premium to op no.2, the data of complainant was uploaded on the portal. It appears that as data of complainant was not uploaded on the portal by op no.1 bank, therefore, insurance company stated that farmer is not insured and therefore op no.2 did not pay any insurance claim to the complainant because other farmers of village Lakkarwali have already received compensation for the damage of their crops of Kharif, 2017. As such op no.1 bank is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 in Sirsa district was Rs.69,000/- as is evident from document Ex.C16. So as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.59,373/- as claimed by him for damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in his 32 kanals 01 marla of land. The op no.1 bank is liable to pay the said claim amount of Rs.59,373/- to the complainant.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua op no.1 bank and direct the opposite party no.1 bank to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.59,373/- to the complainant 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 said amount of Rs.59,373/- from op no.1 bank alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op no.1 bank to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. The complaint qua op no.2 stands dismissed. However, op no.1 bank is at liberty to recover this amount from op no.2 insurance company in case it is found from its record that crop of complainant was insured with op no.2 by op no.1. 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. 07.05.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
