BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 712 of 2019.                                                            

                                                               Date of Institution :    18.12.2019.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    13.02.2024.

1. Anguri Devi aged about 75 years wife of Sh. Jai Singh S/o Sh. Puran Ram.
2. Prem Lata aged about 47 years wife of Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Jai Singh R/o Village Mohamadpuria Tehsil Rania Distt. Sirsa.

                                ……Complainants.

                             Versus.

1. Axis Bank Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Rania Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. ABW Towers Unit No. 511-512 5^th floor M.G. Road Iffco Chowk, Gurugram 122001 through its director.

...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT                                   

                  MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.

                   Sh. O.P. TUTEJA……………………………………MEMBER

Present:       Sh. K.R. Taak, Advocate for complainants.

                    Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                   Sh. Rajesh Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

ORDER

                   The complainants have filed the present complaint under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs).

2.       In brief, the case of the complainants is that complainants are agriculturists by profession and are having 2/3^rd share of land measuring 88 kanals 07 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 510 Khatuni No. 579, Rect. No. 86 Killa No.2, Rect. No. 98 Killa No.6 situated at village Modi, Sub Tehsil Goriwala, District Sirsa vide jamabandi for the year 2017-18. The complainants have availed KCC facility from op no.1 on their above detailed agricultural land through joint account no. 917030037749974. It is further averred that on 29.07.2017 premium amount of Rs.3474/- was deducted by op no.1 bank from the above said joint account of complainants for insuranc of their kharif crop of 2017 as per crop insurance scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and op no.1 had got insured the crop from op no.2 but did not supply copy of insurance policy despite their requests. That complainants had sown cotton crop in kharif, 2017 season which was damaged on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and as such complainants are entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- per acre. The complainants approached the ops and requested for the claim of damages to their crops but on all the occasions the ops told the complainants to wait for some time. That even after passing of more than one and half years, the complainants did not get claim whereas some of the villagers have already received compensation within one year. Thereafter ops flatly refused to admit their genuine claim and as such ops have caused deficiency in service, unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainants. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that crop of complainants was insured with op no.2 after debiting a sum of Rs.3474/- on 29.07.2017 in the KCC account of complainants. The answering op remitted the said amount to op no.2. The coverage of risks to the insured crops were/ are subject to relevant terms and conditions of the insurance company and answering op has no role to play therein. It is further submitted that answering op submitted relevant papers relating to the land holding of complainants to the insurance company which were supplied by complainants. As per the norms of the policy, the insurance company after insurance of the crop of a farmer had to verify the physical data by visiting the spot. So, the existence of standing crop at the spot was to be verified by the insurance company. It is further submitted that at the time of moving the loan application, the complainants had mentioned and disclosed in their loan application about the crops standing at the spot, but thereafter, they never intimated the bank about the change of crop over their mortgaged land, if any. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.

4.       Initially on notice, none appeared on behalf of op no.2 and as such op no.2 was proceeded against exparte. But thereafter op no.2 moved an application to join the proceedings and as such op no.2 was allowed to join the proceedings.

5.       Op no.2 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op did not receive any premium regarding alleged cotton crop of kharif, 2017 of complainants of village Modi, District Sirsa. There is option for change of crop name from the original crop indicated in the loan application and it should be in writing with the concerned bank within two working days before the cut off date what was the crop under insurance, what was sown can only be ascertained from bank record, girdawari which has not been placed on record and in case of lapses or flaw in this regard, the matter regarding lapses of entry of wrong crop, village and non payment of insurance premium to insurance company are dispute between bank and complainants farmers and company will have no liability. It is further submitted that it is the duty of banker for loanee farmer to ensure correct particulars to be uploaded in all respect with regard to the land village, crop name etc. That on the portal there is no entry of coverage against the account number of complainants through the bank regarding the alleged cotton crop of complainants and as such there is no insurance of alleged crop of complainants. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

 6.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.

7.       Though complainants are claiming insurance claim amount for the damage of their cotton crop of kharif, 2017 but however, the complainants themselves at the time of availing loan facility from op no. 1 bank through application Ex. R-2 declared that both the complainants will sow paddy crop in kharif and wheat in Rabi season over their land. Since the complainants have not given any intimation to the op no. 1 bank regarding change of crop pattern, therefore, op no. 1 bank got insured paddy crop of complainants and as such complainants are not entitled to any claim amount for the damage of their paddy crop from any of the ops and as such complainants are estopped from filing the present complaint by their own act and conduct. The KCC facility has been availed by the complainants for sowing the paddy in kharif and wheat in the rabi season. Now, in the present complaint the complainants are claiming insurance compensation for the loss of cotton crop where as the complainants never informed the bank regarding the sowing of cotton crop in kharif 2017 at the time of sanctioning of KCC limits by the Bank. Since the complainants have purchased the land on 12^th January 2017 and the pattern of crop has been mentioned in the loan application form Ex. R-2, therefore they are not entitled for claim of damage of cotton crop. More so the complainants have not placed any record of threshold yield of block of village Modi of Kharif 2017.

8.       From the perusal of evidence led by the Insurance Co. i.e. affidavit Ex. RW-2/A of Sonu Rathi Legal Manager ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. it is evident that he has averred there is no insurance of alleged cotton crop kharif 2017 of the complainants of the land situated in village Modi Distt. Sirsa and it is incumbent on the banker of the loanee farmer to insure the correct particulars of the land village crop, name etc. required and covering the risk of only notified crops i.e. paddy, bajra, maize, cotton for kharif and wheat, gram, barley, mustard, sun-flower for rabi and bank is paid 4 % charges on account of service charge on the premium collected from the bank.   The Bank has also not any record of insured crop whether it was paddy or cotton which was got insured from the OP No. 2 as the OP No. 2 has specifically denied that the cotton crop of complainant was got insured for kharif 2017. Since as per Ex. R-2 placed on record by the Bank the pattern of crop has been mentioned by the complainant paddy and wheat for kharif and rabi seasons, therefore, the bank and insurance company OP No. 1 & 2 are not liable for the loss of crop of cotton of complainants as the complainants have never reported to the bank regarding the change of crop which was mentioned as paddy by the complainant at the time of sanctioning of KCC Limit.

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         Member             President

Dt. 13.02.2024.                                                       District Consumer Disputes                                                                                                                                                                                  Redressal Commission, Sirsa.