BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 251 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 13.10.2020.
Date of Decision : 13.09.2024.
1. Parsha Ram, aged about 40 years, 2. Dharampal aged about 39 years sons of Shri Bhal Singh, resident of village Dhukra, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
1. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Jamal/ Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
3. Block Agricultural Officer, Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
...…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. B.C. Bhatiwal, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Parveen Godara, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER:-
The complainants have 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 complainants is that they are agriculturists and are owner in possession of land measuring 07 acres alongwith other land as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 situated in village Dhukra, Tehsil and District Sirsa and previously their father Shri Bhal Singh was owner in possession of said land and after his death, they have become owner in possession of said land. The whole of their family is dependent upon income of seasonal crops. It is further averred that father of complainant was having his bank account/ Kissan Credit Account with op no.1 and op no.1 bank is deducting amount of premium under PMFBY scheme continuously from the account since launching of said scheme and op no.1 bank also deducted premium amount from the account of father of complainants for insurance of Kharif crop of 2018. It is further averred that whole cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 was destroyed due to attack of natural calamity and water logging and complainant suffered heavy loss. The complainants approached op no.2 insurance company and requested to pay compensation but op no.2 did not pay any heed to their requests. That complainants also requested op no.3 to make survey and assess loss of cotton crop which submitted report after survey of their fields that complainants have suffered 80% loss however, ops have denied the genuine claim by simply shifting the liability on each other. It is further averred that complainants have been taking rounds to the office of ops for getting claim of damaged crop and have been suffering unnecessary harassment due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of ops. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Learned counsel for op no.1 suffered a statement that account number in the complaint is not KCC account with the bank, therefore, bank does not want to file any reply/ written statement.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op did not receive any premium against account number, name of farmer and land mentioned by complainants. However, if bank had failed to pay the premium of insurance for getting the coverage of insurance of crop of complainants of said village, in that eventuality, answering op cannot be held liable to make payment of any damages, if any and compensation to the complainants. On the portal there is no entry of coverage against the account number of complainants through the bank regarding the crop mentioned in the complaint. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.3 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op is only liable to conduct the survey of loss and to prepare the report which has been done by op as per operational guidelines of Government of India and report has been forwarded for necessary action. It is up to higher authorities as well as insurance company who have power to disburse the claim of the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. The complainant, ops no.1 and 2 led their respective evidence whereas learned counsel for op no.3 stated that written version be read as its evidence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. First of all, there is nothing on file to prove the fact that any insurance premium was ever deducted by op no.1 bank from the account of father of complainants or from their account. The account is of Indian Bank and not of op no.1 as is evident from copy of pass book of father of complainant Ex.C3. Further more, the op no.2 has also placed on file report of Assistant Statistical Officer office of Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa as Ex.R2/3 in which it is reported that as per crop cutting experiments, the average yield of cotton crop of village Dhukra in Kharif, 2018 was 979.88 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta was 561.06 Kgs. per hectare. So, as per this report Ex.R2/3, there was no loss to the cotton crop of village Dhukra in Kharif, 2018 because as per operational guidelines of PMFBY there is loss of crop if the average yield of village is less than threshold yield of block. Since the average yield of village Dhukra was more than threshold yield of block, so as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, it cannot be said that there was any loss to the cotton crop of village Dhukra in Kharif, 2018 and that there was any loss of crop of their father or of complainants. Moreover, report of loss is to be prepared on the basis of crop cutting experiments only as per operational guidelines of PMFBY and accordingly the report Ex.R2/3 is submitted on the basis of crop cutting experiment. In these circumstances, complainants are not entitled to any claim.
9. 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 Member President
Dt. 13.09.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
