BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 240 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 08.05.2019.
Date of Decision : 22.11.2022.
Raja Ram (aged about 77 years & Senior Citizen) son of Sh. Purkha Ram, resident of village Mohammadpuria, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa through his Special Power of Attorney Sh. Bharat Singh son of Sh. Raja Ram, resident of village Mohammadpuria, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
Versus.
1. Union Bank of India, Branch Rania, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Union Bank of India, Regional Office: 1st Floor, Assa Ram Market, Model Town, Karnal- 132001 (Haryana) through its Regional Manager/ Authorized Person.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ABW Towers, Unit No. 511-512, 5th Floor, M.G. Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurugram- 122001 through M.D./ authority person.
...…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. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant through his son Sh. Bharat Singh special power of attorney holder as complainant is old and senior citizen person and has claimed insurance claim amount from the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) for the damage of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2017.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is an agricultural and is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 85 kanals 18 marlas (as detailed in para No.2 of the complaint) situated in village Mohammadpuria, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa and has obtained KCC loan facility from op no.1. That as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, the op no.1 got insured the crop of complainant with op no.3 and premium of amount of Rs.4663.42 was debited from his account bearing No. 724505030000311 on 29.07.2017. The complainant had sown paddy crop in his above said land which was got insured by op no.1 through op no.3 for any kind of damage. It is further averred that paddy crop of complainant was damaged to the extent of 100% due to natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught. The Government directed the Agriculture department to inspect the spot and to ascertain the damages caused to the insured crops of the farmers. Accordingly, the Agriculture department visited the agricultural land of complainant as well as other agriculturists and duly inspected the spot and it was found that paddy crop of kharif, 2017 of complainant has been damaged to the extent of 100%. A report in this regard was submitted to the higher authorities and also to ops no.1 and 2. It is further averred that the farmers gains crop of Rs.60,000/- per acre every year and as such complainant sustained losses of Rs.6,44,250/- approximately on account of damage to his insured crop and is entitled for the said amount. That op no.3 had to pay insurance claim amount to the complainant under the aforesaid policy. The complainant approached to the ops and requested them to disburse the amount of compensation for the losses suffered by him but the ops kept on lingering the matter on one false pretext or the other and now about a week ago, the ops have refused to disburse any such amount to the complainant saying that paddy crop of complainant has never been insured by them and as such complainant is not entitled to compensation. The ops have failed to pay insurance claim amount despite his several requests and visits and have caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 3 appeared. Op no.2 did not appear despite notice sent through registered cover and after waiting for stipulated period since none appeared on behalf of op no.2, therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
4. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections of non serving of prior notice, estoppal, maintainability, no cause of action, suppression of true and material facts, jurisdiction, no consumer dispute, complaint is hopelessly time barred, non joinder of necessary parties and that answering op has charged no penny for itself from the complainant, hence, op no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. On merits, it is submitted that complainant earlier availed crop loan facilities under KCC scheme from answering op, however, said loan account of complainant has been closed by him by liquidating the outstanding amount. Hence, complainant is no more consumer of answering op. It is further submitted that at the time of advancement of loan, the complainant has declared crops to be sown by him in the month of June to October paddy and in the month of November to April Wheat in his fields and requested the answering op for getting the insurance of the above said declared crops. Accordingly, answering op debited a sum of Rs.4663.42 on 29.07.2017 in the loan account of complainant and transferred the same to op no.3 for getting the insurance of his crops as per scheme of Government of India. Remaining contents of complainant are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
6. Op no.3 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage of alleged loss, insurance company cannot be quested for proposal related disputes, not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, non submission of proof of loss or weather report, limited coverage as per scheme, yield basis claims are decided by Government, no survey no quantification of loss, no privity of contract, non impleading of necessary parties etc. It is submitted that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Mohmmadpuria, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa due to the reason mentioned in the loss assess report “Rains not lead to Inundation” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground given in the loss assess report alone. It is also submitted that if any mistake is done by complainant or by bank of complainants, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied. It is submitted that claim of complainant was rejected as crop loss occurred due to rains but the same is not leading to Inundation which is covered for loss under the scheme and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
7. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
8. Sh. Bharat Singh Special Power of Attorney of complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C1/A and special power of attorney Ex.C2. Documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C16 have also been tendered in evidence of complainant.
9. On the other hand op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Mukesh Kumar Manager as Ex.R1, copy of statement of account Ex.R2 and loan documents Ex.R3 and Ex.R4.
10. Op no.3 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
12. From the copy of statement of account of complainant Ex.C8, it is evident that on 29.07.2017 an amount of Rs.4663.42 was deducted by op no.1 bank for insuring the Kharif crop of 2017 of complainant. The complainant in order to prove his ownership over the above said agricultural land has placed on file copies of jamabandis as Ex.C3 to Ex.C7. The complainant has also placed on file Khasra Girdawari of the year 2017-2018 as Ex.C9, the perusal of which reveals that complainant had sown wheat crop in Kharif, 2017. The op no.1 bank has also supported the version of complainant that it had deducted premium amount for the insurance of paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 and premium amount was paid to op no.3 insurance company. From the certificate of the bank Ex.C12, it is also evident that premium amount of Rs.4663.42 was deducted by op no.1 bank for insuring the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017. Further, from the loan document i.e. loan application Ex.R3 it is evident that complainant is sowing paddy crop in Kharif season. So, it is proved on record that complainant is sowing crop of paddy in Kharif season and not sowing any other crop and had also sown paddy crop in Kharif, 2017. The op no.3 in a very casual and haste manner has averred that complainant is claiming for cotton crop whereas complainant is claiming claim amount for the damage of his paddy crop. The op no.3 has not proved on record through any affidavit or other documentary evidence that what mistake was committed by complainant or by bank of complainant. The complainant in order to prove damage to his paddy crop has also placed on file copy of statement of account one Bhajan Singh who is also having his land in village Mohammadpuria and said statement of account of said Bhajan Singh Ex.C13 reveals that said Bhajan Singh received claim amount for the damage of his crop of Kharif, 2017. Further, complainant at the time of arguments has also placed on file report of Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa in which it is mentioned that average yield of paddy crop of village Mohammadpura in Kharif, 2017 was 2088.48 Kg. per hectare and threshold yield of Rania Block was 3310.38 Kg. per hectare and therefore, as per criteria given in the scheme of PMFBY for calculation of shortfall of yield, since the average yield of village was less than threshold yield of Block, and co-villager of complainant has already received compensation, therefore, it is proved on record that there was also loss to the paddy crop of complainant in Kharif, 2017.
13. Now, the question arises for consideration that to what extent the complainant is entitled for claim amount. The complainant has claimed claim amount of Rs.6,44,250/- for the loss of his whole paddy crop of Kharif, 2017 in his 85 kanals 18 marlas of land at the rate of Rs.60,000/-. However, since as per report of Deputy Director of Agriculture department, Sirsa, the average yield of paddy crop of village Mohammadpuria in Kharif, 2017 was 2088.48 Kgs. per hectare, therefore, it cannot be said that there was total damage to the paddy crop of complainant. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has claimed excessive and exaggerated claim amount. Further for calculation of claim amount, a formula has been given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY which is as under:-
Threshold Yield minus Actyal Yield X Sum Insured.
Threshold yield
14. The complainant owns 85 kanals 18 marlas of agricultural land which is equal to about 4.35 hectares. As mentioned above, the threshold yield of paddy crop of block Rania was 3310.38 Kgs. per hectare and actual yield of village Mohammadpuria was 2088.48 Kgs. per hectare. The sum insured of paddy crop of Kharif, 2017 in Sirsa District was 71,500/- per hectare as per notification dated 13.06.2017 of Haryana Government and therefore, the calculation of the claim amount for the loss of paddy crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainant is as under:-
3310.38 minus 2088.48 multiple by
3310.38 71500 X 4.35 hectare = Rs. 1,14,803/-.
15. From above calculation, it is evident that complainant is entitled to claim amount of Rs.1,14,803/- from op no.3 for the loss of his paddy crop of Kharif, 2017. However, no liability of any kind of ops no.1 and 2 bank is made out as op no.1 bank of complainant got insured the crop of complainant as per scheme of Government. So, complaint against ops no.1 and 2 is liable to be dismissed.
16. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint qua op no.3 and direct the opposite party no.3 to pay a sum of Rs.1,14,803/- as insurance claim amount 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 alongwith @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization from op no.3. We also direct to op no.3 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complaint qua ops no.1 and 2 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 22.11.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
