BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 227 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 06.10.2020.
Date of Decision : 03.04.2024.
Prithvi Singh son of Shri Hansraj, resident of V.P.O. Shakker Mandori, Block Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, S.C.O. 147-148, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.
2. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Haryana.
3. The Nathusari Kalan PACS Ltd., through its Manager, Village Nathusari Kalan, District Sirsa, Haryana.
4. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank through its Manager, village Nehrana, District Sirsa, Haryana.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Parveen Godara, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.2.
Sh. G.S. Kasnia, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Sh. Ravinder Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
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 complainant is that he is an agriculturist and is having Kisan Credit card account with ops no.3 and 4 bearing account number 100439 and 81188800011822 respectively against his share of land measuring around 1.4 acres and 3.4 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Shakker Mandori. That as per crop insurance scheme, the ops no.3 and 4 deducted insurance premium amount of Rs.727.57 and Rs.1760.40 respectively from the above accounts of complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2016 season with op no.1 and premium amount was deposited with op no.1 by ops no.3 and 4. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainant of 2016 was completely damaged due to white fly and other natural calamity which was also verified by ops and as per report submitted by Agriculture department, the complainant is eligible for the sum assured amount of Rs.24,000/- per acre alongwith interest. The complainant approached the op no.1 for insurance claim but every time the complainant was informed that they have not received the crop cutting report from op no.2. It is further averred that complainant approached the ops several times and requested to pay compensation but none of the ops paid any claim amount to him and as such it is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of ops. That other farmers have already been paid claim amount and as such ops have caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, non intimation, delay and that as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, complainant should have approached to the grievance cell of government agencies i.e. DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and decision of said department would be binding on all state Government/ Insurance company/ banks and farmers and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. It is further submitted that as per operational guidelines, yield claim is not payable if the actual yield is greater than threshold yield. In the present case, actual yield for block Nathusari Chopta is 755.77 Kgs. while the threshold yield is 606.78 Kgs., hence complainant is not entitled to any claim. Thus, the claim is correctly repudiated by answering op as per operational guidelines. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or report of survey of loss of crop is to be prepared by op no.2 and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of op no.2 in this regard. The yield basis claims are settled by insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by op no.2 within specific time period and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. Op no.3 also filed separate written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op debited the insurance premium amount in the loan account of complainant and furnished the particulars of land and crop of comfplainant to op no.1. The total premium amount of Rs.16,51,609/- of complainant and other loanee farmers was remitted to op no.1 in its bank account No. 00600350027635 through RTGS on 30.07.2016. As such claim was to be paid by insurance company and answering op has nothing to do with the same. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. Op no.4 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that only responsibility of answering op was to deduct the premium amount from the account of complainant and to deposit the same with the op no.1 which has already been discharged by answering op without committing any irregularity and deficiency. Remaining contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
7. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.
8. On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered affidavit of Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory as Ex. RW1/A and documents R1/1 to Ex.R1/14. OP no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex. R2/1 to Ex.R2/3. OPs no.3 and 4 did not lead any evidence despite availing opportunities and their evidence was closed by order. However, op no.3 has placed on file proposal form Ex. RW3/1. Op no.4 placed on file affidavit of Sh. Manoj Kumar, Branch Manager.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.2 and have gone through the case file.
10. In so far as objection of the op no.1 regarding delay in filing the present complaint is concerned, the complainant already filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith the complaint. It has been submitted in the application that op no.2 had assured the complainant that letters for the settlement of cotton crop loss claim have been sent to op no.1 and on the assurance the applicant had not filed the complaint earlier but till today he has not received the sum insured amount on account of damage of his cotton crop. As such now complaint is to be decided on merits and not on mere technicalities and as such delay, if any is hereby condoned. Therefore, application in this regard stands allowed.
11. The Agriculture department which is liable to conduct survey of loss of crops has placed on file report of Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmers Welfare department, Sirsa as Ex.R2/1 in which it is reported that average yield of cotton crop of kharif, 2016 of village Shakkar Mandori was 247.38 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta was 606.78 kgs. per hectare and as such as per this report Ex.R2/1, there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant of kharif, 2016. Moreover, Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa through various letters as placed on file repeatedly recommended for assessment of loss of cotton crop of kharif, 2016 of the farmers of the village Shakkar Mandori as average yield remained as 247.38 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block was 606.78 Kgs. per hectare. So, it cannot be said that threshold yield of block was less than actual yield of village Shakker Mandori. It is proved on record from document Ex.C2 and Ex.C4 that premium amount of Rs.17,60.40 and Rs.727.57 were deducted from the account of the complainant for insurance of his cotton crop of the complainant. From the Haryana Govt. notification dated 17.06.2016 Ex.R2/2, it is evident that the sum insured amount of cotton crop in Sirsa District in 2016 was Rs.60,000/- per hectare. So, as per formula given in operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.71,500/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2016 in his 2.023 hectares of land. The op no.1 insurance company is liable to pay the said claim amount to the complainant being insurer of crop of complainant because it received insurance premium from complainant through op no.3.
12. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against opposite party no.1 insurance company and direct the op no.1 to pay above said claim amount of Rs.71,500/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to receive the above said amount of Rs.71,500/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from op no.1 from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op no.1 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 of 45 days. However, complaint qua remaining ops no.2 to 4 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President
Dt. 03.04.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
