STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN Date of Admission: 09.03.2023 Date of Final Hearing: 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 SC/5/A/222/2022 Sh. Kashmir Singh S/o Sh. Sada Singh R/o Village Kachi Khamaria Tehsil Kichha, District Udhamsingh Nagar (Through: Sh. Chetan Jain and Sh. Saurabh Rana, Advocates)

…… Appellant Versus

1. Chief Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited

56, Rajpur Road, Behind Hotel Classic Dehradun (Uttarakhand)

(Through: Smt. Anjali Gusain, Advocate)

2. Managing Director, Bahuuddeshiya Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited Dakshini Kichha, District Udhamsingh Nagar (Uttarakhand) 3. Branch Manager, District Co-operative Bank Limited Kichha (Udhamsingh Nagar), Uttarakhand

4. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India Branch Rudrapur (Udhamsingh Nagar)

(Through: None for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4)

…… Respondents Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. B.S. Manral, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udhamsingh Nagar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 121 of 2018, styled as Sh. Kashmir Singh Vs. Chief Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited and others, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint filed by the appellant / complainant was dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that the appellant / complainant is a farmer by profession. The complainant had availed loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from respondent Nos. 2 to 4 / opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 between the period from 01.05.2018 to 31.10.2018 for cultivating the paddy crop. At the time of sanctioning / granting the loan to the appellant, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had got the paddy crop sowed by the appellant in his field admeasuring 12.0 acre, insured with respondent No. 1 / opposite party No. 1 (insurance company). The appellant had sowed P.R. 113 paddy crop in his field. In the last week of September, 2018, the entire paddy crop sowed by the appellant in his field, which was ready for harvesting, got damaged on account of natural calamity, heavy rains and windstorm, intimation whereof was given by the appellant to respondent No. 2 on 27.08.2018, who inspected the spot and in turn, informed the insurance company about the loss by way of e-mail. The total yield in the field would have been to the extent of 420 quintal and at the government rate of Rs. 1,750/- per quintal, there was loss of Rs. 7,35,000/- to the appellant, which the insurance company is liable to indemnify. The insurance company, however, did not pay the claim of the appellant, thereby causing financial loss and mental agony to the appellant. Therefore, the consumer complaint was filed by the appellant before the District Commission.

3. The respondent No. 1 / opposite party No. 1 (insurance company) filed written statement before the District Commission and pleaded that there are only three localized risks, namely, landslide, hailstorm and inundation, for which upon intimation of loss, survey is conducted for loss assessment as per provisions of the scheme. It was also submitted that as per the scheme, the comprehensive risk is provided to cover yield loss of notified insured crop (sowing to harvesting) due to non-preventable risks, viz. drought, dry spell, flood, inundation, heavy rains, widespread pest and disease attack, landslide, fire due to natural causes, lightening, storm, hailstorm and cyclone. Losses of these risks are compensated on area approach basis and paid as per CCEs yield data provided by the State Government at notified area level. All the eligible claims are settled as per scheme provisions and scheme notification. In the present case, as per scheme provision, no claim is payable, hence the complainant has no locus standi to file th