BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 04 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 03.01.2022.
Date of Decision : 19.03.2024.
Daljeet Singh son of Sh. Joginder Singh, resident of village Tilokewala, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Kalanwali, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company Limited, Office Block No.1, 5th Floor, Plate – B & C, East Kidwai Nagar, Ring Road, New Delhi- 110023 through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Manjeet Singh Dandiwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
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 the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist and his whole family depends on agricultural income. He is owner in possession of land measuring 10 acres situated in village Tilokewala, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 and has availed KCC facility from op no.1 over said land vide account no. 06005111008321. That op no.1 got insured the cotton crop of 2020 and rabi crop of 2020-2021 with op no.2 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna by deducting premium amounts of Rs.15,636.25 on 29.07.2020 and Rs.3695.86 on 30.12.2020 and said crops were damaged to the extent of 100% due to natural calamities, pests/ dieses and draught and said fact was verified by Agriculture department. That none of the ops have paid any compensation for the damage of his above said crops despite his several requests and legal notice dated 02.08.2021 whereas other farmers have already received compensation and as such they have caused deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint seeking claim amount of Rs.5,50,000/- for the damage of cotton and wheat crop and also seeking amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and also litigation expenses.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op after deducting the insurance premium amounts from the KCC account of complainant remitted the same to insurance company and now the claim is to be settled and paid by insurance company. Remaining contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version submitting therein that cotton and wheat crop of complainant in village Tilokewala (316) was insured with the answering op for Kharif 2020 and Rabi 2020-21 season and as there was no shortfall in the actual yield of the insured cotton and wheat crop of complainant farmer in village Tilokewala (316) during Kharif, 2020 and Rabi 2020-21 season, therefore, no area approach claim is payable to the complainant farmer as per PMFBY scheme provisions. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 bank has tendered affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar, Branch Manager & Principal Officer as Ex. RW1/A and document Ex.R1. OP no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Geddam Gaqndhi Raju Regional Manager as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R14.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. The complainant has claimed insurance claim amount for the damage of his insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 and wheat crop of Rabi 2020-2021. However, complainant has not proved on record damage to his said crops through any cogent and convincing evidence. On the other hand, as per reports of Agriculture department placed on file by op no.2 insurance company alongwith letters Ex.R11 and Ex.R12, there was no shortfall to the above said crops in village Tilokewala because the average yield of both the crops of village Tilokewala was more than average yield of block of village Tilokewala. As per reports of agriculture department, the average yield of wheat crop of Rabi 2020-2021 of village Tilokewala was 4662.65 Kgs. per hectare whereas average yield of block was 4578.70 kgs. per hectare and as such as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was no loss to the wheat crop of village Tilokewala. Similarly, the average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2020 of village Tilokewala was 434.58 Kgs. per hectare whereas average yield of block was 354.474 Kgs. per hectare and as such there was also no loss to the cotton crop of village Tilokewala. So complainant is not entitled to any claim amount for any of the ops and complaint deserves dismissal.
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 President,
Dated: 19.03.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
