STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.570 of 2018
Date of Institution: 03.05.2018
Date of final hearing: 24.04.2023
Date of pronouncement: 03.05.2023
Inder Jeet son of Sh. Paras Ram, age 76 years R/o V.P.O. Khanpur Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar.
…..Appellant
Versus
- State Bank of India, Branch Office Bhatala, Hansi District Hisar (Through its Branch Manager).
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, SCF-52, 1st Floor, Red square Market, Hisar, PIN Code:125001.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company through its authorized signatory/person, Head office GE Plaza 1st Floor, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 Tel. +91-020-66026666.
…..Respondents
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Present:- Sh. Lokesh Godara, counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Alka Joshi, counsel for respondent No. 1.
Sh. Rajesh Verma, counsel for respondent No.2 & 3.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 04 days in filing the present appeal has been condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.
2. Unsuccessful, but still unfazed complainant is in appeal. He has invited a challenge to the legality of order dated 16.03.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short “District Commission”) vide which complaint case No.50 of 2017 filed by complainant-Inder Jeet, has been dismissed.
3. As per complainant’s case he was holding crops insurance policy under scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with OPs No.2 and 3. OPs charged Rs.5,175/- for insurance of paddy crops for 10 acre. His paddy crops of 10 acres was damaged due to water logging in his fields. He informed OP No.1, who advised him to inform OPs No.2 and 3 and he (complainant) informed them on 14.10.2016 at their Toll Free No.18002095858, who registered his complaint No.64520499 and assured for survey of damaged paddy crops of his fields. He was assured that if paddy corps damaged then OPs No.2 and 3 would grant compensation on account of damaged paddy crops as per policy in question. Officials of OPs No.2 and 3 surveyed damaged paddy crops of 10 acres of the complainant; did photography of damaged paddy corps and after 4/5 days; provided one copy of photographs to him. He contacted OPs No.2 and 3 on 26.10.2016 and 15.11.2016 regarding his paddy crops compensation but in vain. He contacted the officials of OPs and requested to grant him compensation on account of damaged paddy crops of 10 acres but they refused. He served legal notice upon the OP No.1 and 2 on 13.01.2017 and OP No.3 on 30.01.2017 but OPs did not reply to legal notices. On these pleas, by asserting deficient and negligent services to him and by alleging that OPs adopted unfair trade practices by not granting him compensation under policy, complaint was filed with the prayer that OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest and to further pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, anguishment, loss etc.
4. OP No.1/State Bank of India has taken defence that complaint is false, vague, wrong, illegal, arbitrary, frivolous, incorrect, baseless and vexatious and filed to harass and humiliate OP No.1. There is no deficiency in service on its part and complainant has no cause of action to file complaint, complaint is not maintainable; he is estopped by his own act and conduct; and has no locus standi. He has suppressed true and material facts. It is pleaded that complainant insured his paddy crop (Kharif) on land measuring 4.14 hectare and premium of Rs.5,175/- was debited on 03.08.2016 to his loan account and paid to OPs No. 2 and 3. Complainant has not given any intimation regarding any damage/loss to crops to OP No.1. Insured has to lodge claim regarding damage of corps with OPs No.2 and 3 and they are liable to pay the claim, if payable. There is no role of OP No.1 in settlement and payment of claim, if any.
5. OPs No. 2 and 3 filed their joint defence have pleaded that complaint is pre-mature, not maintainable and complainant has no cause of action or locus standi. He is estopped by his own act and conduct. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.2 & 3. It is pleaded that as per the Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, Clause XV.1 Localized Risk Cover will be provided at individual farm level to crop losses due to occurrence of localized peril/calamities viz. landslide, hailstorm and inundation affecting part of a notified unit or a plot. All losses to standing crop due to non-preventive risk viz. Drought, Dry spells, flood, Inundation, Pests and Diseases, Landslides, natural fire and Lightening Storm, Hailstorm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane and Tomado will be calculated on the basis of season end yield estimate by the Crop Cutting Experiment, overseen by State Government Department before the cutoff date as decided by SLCCCI., However, in the instant case, the crop of the complainant is stated to be damaged due to water logging in his fields which is not covered under any of the above mentioned causes of loss to the crops. Clause XI.1 states that the scheme runs on area approach basis. Claim is calculated on the basis of Crop Cutting Experiment Results share by the State Government to the Insurance companies. If the claim is payable in an insurance unit (Village, Village Panchayat, Block etc. as notified by State Govt.) all the insured farmers of that insurance unit gets benefited. In the instant case, the claimant has intimated the reason of loss caused due to water logging in his fields and in individual capacity, and not due to any of the above reasons, hence it will not be surveyed at individual farm level and claim (if applicable) will be settled on the basis of CCE Report provided by Haryana Govt subject to receipt of final subsidy from State Govt and Govt. of India. As per the operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (Operation guidelines); all the disputes related to Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna shall be dealt by government appointed committee for that particular Unit Area. As per the standard terms and conditions of the policy; the complainant has failed to control/take reasonable care of his crop as there is no proof on record in relation to reasonable care taken by the complainant to control the water logging. It is pleaded that no claim has been registered with OPs No. 2 & 3 and he never visited the office of OPs No. 2 & 3 who are not liable to pay any compensation.
6. Parties to this lis led their respective evidence (oral as well documentary) before learned District Commission. After subjectively and critically analyzing the same; learned District Commission, vide order dated 16.03.2018 has dismissed the complaint of complainant.
7. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.
8. This Commission has heard learned counsel for the parties at length on 24.04.2023 and perused record with their assistance. Learned counsel for appellant has contended that impugned order dated 16.03.2018 is erroneous, legally and factually. Evidence has not been apricated in a proper legal perspective. It has not been appreciated that there is significant evidence showing damaged caused to paddy crop of complainant in the form of photographs Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-16, which substantiate factum of loss suffered to paddy crop of complainant. Legal notice was served upon OPs under registered cover which was not replied. On these submissions, learned counsel for appellant/complainant has contended that complaint as filed before learned District Commission deserves acceptance for the prayer made therein.
9. Controverting the contentions, learned counsel appearing for OPs. in one voice, have urged that impugned order dated 16.03.2018 is legally justified, it is well-reasoned and factually correct thereby warranting no interference. It is urged that no evidence has been led by complainant to prove his case.
10. There is no denying that complainant obtained paddy crop insurance policy from OPs No. 2 & 3. Also, there is no denying fact that Rs.5,175/- was deposited as premium from account of complainant. Ex.C-3 is the Jamabandi for the year 2015-2016. This Jamabandi reflects that 80 kanals, 4 marls of land comprising in 13 kittas and forming part of Khewat No. 179//151, Khatoni No. 256 get irrigation from canal i.e. from Kharkari Minor. Name of complainant is also mentioned in column of ownership and land is under self-cultivation. Document dated 29.01.2018 (X-I) is the letter address to complainant from the office of Assistant State Public Relation Officer & Executive Engineer, Hisar Water Services Division, Hisar as information sought under RTI Act, 2005. This letter reflects that Kharkari Minor broke on 20.09.2016 at RD 4550-L, on 21.09.2016 at RD 9500-L, on 23.09.2016 at RD 12760-L, on 18.10.2016 at RD 25300-L, on 25.09.2016 at RD 4650-L and on 28.10.2016 at RD 27800-L.
11. Onus to prove a positive pleaded fact that paddy crops of complainant suffered damage lay upon complainant. Text of complaint filed by him sans the plea as to how water logging in his fields had resulted. There is a generic term called “Inclement Weather” often used to describe poor or bad weather. There is no plea that water logging in his fields (10 acres) was due to inclement weather causing heavy rain coupled with high velocity winds hurricane, tornadoes thereby causing havoc to his paddy crops. Had any such natural calamity existed, then Govt. authorities at the helm of affairs could have mitigated his loss. Genesis of his case is also not that due to breach of Kharkhri Minor for six times during September/October, 2016; huge quantity of water inundated his fields of 10 acres and cause damage to his paddy crops. Had it be so, complainant might had taken Canal Irrigation Authority to task, but there is no evidence to that effect either. Obviously, it was on complainant himself to unveil the mystery of his fields (10 acres) being water logged by leading admissible evidence, but he failed in that arena.
12. If pleaded stance of OPs No. 2 & 3 in their written statement is critically analyzed, then it would reflect that quantity of yield generated from the fields of complainant, at relevant time, would be the main criteria and determining factor for calculation of loss of crops. In this case, there is no evidence, worth the name, regarding extent of yield generated by complainant from his sworn paddy crop. This is just because: at least some quantity of paddy crop of complainant might had survived from alleged water logging. Had water of Kharkari Minor, deviated its course, due to breach, then it might had caused loss to crops of other land owners, whose fields are adjacent to 10 acres land of complainant. There is no evidence that water logging had taken place in fields of any such other land owner(s). Needless to say; some meaningful overt act was expected from complainant, as a remedial measure, to plug water logging, but his complaint does not reflect any such step taken by him, or by anyone else at his behest.
13. Reliance placed by learned counsel for appellant on cited judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as “Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. versus Kishan Lal & Anr.” 2014(45) R.C.R. (Civil) 347; is unfounded. Facts of the cited judgments are distinguishable to facts of this case. Mere reliance by complainant on photographs Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-16 will not stimulate his case in any manner, even remotely.
14. In wake of these circumstances, it is held that there is no evidence brought on record by complainant to fortify alleged loss of his paddy crops due to water logging. Still further, while looking at the stance of OPs No. 2 & 3 in their written statement, it is deciphered that water logging is foreign to the causes, so covered under policy. Collectively for above reasons; this Commission endorses the finding of learned District Commission. Complaint filed by complainant has been rightly dismissed and he has been rightly non-suited. There is no error, legally or factually in the appreciation of evidence by learned District Commission. Consequently, impugned order dated 16.03.2018 is affirmed and maintained. Instant appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.
15. Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
16. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
17. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 03rd May, 2023
Naresh Katyal Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
