Haryana

Ambala

CC/69/2020

Amar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mehar Singh

18 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	69 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	05.03.2020
Date of decision	:	18.09.2023

Amar Singh age 66 yrs s/o Sh. Chet Ram, r/o Vill Adomajra, P.O Naggal, Tehsil & Distt. Ambala City.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. The Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch Jansui Head, Distt Ambala through its Manager.
2. SBI General Insurance Company, 46, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, Metro Pillar No. 129, New Delhi.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Krishi Kender, Ambala City.

….…. Opposite Parties.

 Before:      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Mehar Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   OP No.1 already given up.

                   Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2

                   Shri Mahinder Singh, Legal Assistant of Deputy Director Agriculture  & Farmer Welfare  Department, Krishi Kender,                                 Ambala  City, for the OP No.3.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.29,744.71, after deducting the paid amount as compensation alongwith interest @ 18% P.A from Oct 2018 till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/-, as litigation expenses.
4. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is the permanent resident of village Adomajra, P.O Naggal, Tehsil & Distt. Ambala City and is an agriculturist by caste/profession. He is having his agricultural land situated at village Adomajra, HB no.278, Ambala. The complainant took the loan of Cash Credit Agriculture vide account No.001634001100261 from OP No.1, which in turn deducted the premium to the tune of Rs.594.89 from his account. The complainant got insured and mortgaged his land measuring total area 0.4047 Hectare for the total insurance amount i.e. Rs.29,744.71 for the paddy crop for the year 2018. He had sown the paddy crop in the month of June/July 2018 in the mortgaged/insured land, but due to natural calamity the whole paddy crop of the complainant got damaged alongwith all other farmers of the village Adomajra causing 100% loss as assessed by the Deputy Director Agriculture i.e. OP No 3. This loss was immediately reported to the revenue authorities and the OPs. The Deputy Commissioner and other officials visited the spot on the very next day in the morning and announced that compensation of Rs.25,000/-, per acre will be given for the loss caused but OP No 1 and 2 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. However, lastly OP No 2 through the OP No.1 paid only Rs.7,000/- per acre on 17-06-2019 after a gap of one year, whereas, on the other hand, the complainant was entitled for 100% loss of his crop i.e. total sum insured of  Rs.29,744.71. The complainant even issued a registered AD notice dated 21-09-2019 for making payment of balance insured amount of the damaged crop but the OPs failed to pay the same. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.2, appeared and filed written version on 17.03.2021 and thereafter filed the amended written version on 21.12.2022, wherein it raised preliminary objections with regard to effect that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; the complaint involves complex questions of fact and law that requires production of voluminous evidence, oral as well as documentary, as such it needs to be relegated to civil court etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.2 issued the policy no.201988-0000-00 alongwith application No.040106181120844201801 to complainant for Crop-paddy in village-Addu Majra(278) as per the data available on PMFBY crop portal. OP No.2 observed that in the present case, as the Actual Yield (AY) Kilogram/Hectare was less than Threshold Yield (TY) Kilogram/Hectare for crop in Village:- Addu Majra(278), therefore, due to shortage of yield Rs.7401/- was paid to the complainant. The complainant never approached OP No.2 for localize claim. Crop Insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) which operates on area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as an insurance unit. For all major crops, insurance unit is Gram Panchayat and for minor crops, insurance unit is Taluk. Therefore, the complainant claim was not considered under localize claim process and was assessed as per the shortage of yield basis. All the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claims are furnished by the Government and accordingly the Insurance Company calculated the claim on the basis of formula given in operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY). Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, no jurisdiction, time barred and no cause of action etc.  On merits, it has been stated that OP No.3 received the inundation application and the same was forwarded for conducting survey by the competent authority. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure A to H and closed the evidence behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Nishant Gera, Assistant Manager, SBI General Insurance Company Limited, 46, 3^rd Floor, Karol Bagh, Pusa Road, Opposite Metro Pillar No.129, New Delhi-110005 as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-2/1 to OP-2/2 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.2. Authorized representative for the OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Girish Nagpal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ambala as Annexure OP-3/A and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.3
6.            We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant & learned counsel for the OP No.2 and authorized representative for the OP no.3 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that despite the fact that the OPs were under obligation to pay the claim against the damaged paddy crop to the extent of 100% of the loss suffered by him, yet, by making payment of meager amount of Rs.7000/- per acre, the OPs are deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice.
8.           On the other hand, Learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that as the Actual Yield (AY) Kilogram/Hectare was less than Threshold Yield (TY) Kilogram/Hectare for crop: - Paddy (irrigated) in Village: - Addu Majra(278), therefore, on account of the shortage of yield, Rs.7401/- was paid to the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant never approached OP No.2 for localize claim. He further submitted that crop insurance in question was done under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) which operates on area approach basis i.e. particular area is taken as an insurance unit.
9.           Authorized Signatory of OP No.3 submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation. He further submitted that on receipt of inundation application from the complainant, it was forwarded to the OP No.1 for conducting survey.
10.           The first question that falls for consideration is, as to whether this complaint is time barred or not. It may be stated here that if the period of two years, as prescribed for filing this complaint under the CPA 2019 is taken from July 2018 i.e. the date when the paddy crops of the complainant was damaged, this complaint having been filed on  05.03.2020 is well within limitation.
11.            From the perusal of Jamabandi, Annexure C, it is evident that the agriculture land of the complainant is situated in Village Addu Majra (278). It is coming out from the insurance policy Annexure A that the agriculture land of the complainant measuring 0.4047 Hectare was insured with OP No.2 for an amount of Rs.29744.71 for which OP No.2 had received premium amount of Rs.594.89/- from the complainant.
12.           At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that though the loss caused to the paddy crop of the complainant was to the extent of 100%, yet, OP No.1 has credit only the amount of Rs.7,401/-, in his account. Learned counsel for OP No.2 argued that all the data necessary for processing the crop insurance claims is furnished by the Government and as such, since the Actual Yield (AY) Kilogram/Hectare was less than Threshold Yield (TY) Kilogram/Hectare for crop:- Paddy (irrigated) in Village Addu Majra (278) and also after receiving the data of loss of paddy crop of the village Addu Majra (278) from the sample survey report dated 18.09.2018 Annexure OP-2/2 and dated 18.01.2019 Annexure OP-2/1, issued by the Joint Director, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana, Panchkula, it is crystal clear that the actual yield of the paddy crop in the Village Addu Majra (278) was 2166.52 and the threshold yield was 2884.14, therefore, on account of shortage of yield an amount of Rs.7,401 was paid to the complainant, as per guidelines. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to place on record any evidence, to rebut the contents of sample survey report 18.09.2018 Annexure OP-2/2 and dated 18.01.2019 Annexure OP-2/1,  were issued by the Joint Director, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana, Panchkula.
13.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that since the complainant has failed to prove his case, as such, he is not entitled to any further relief in the matter. Consequently, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.  Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 18.09.2023.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President