BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 360 of 2019
Date of Institution : 11.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 04.03.2020.
Chander Kala aged about 52 years wife of Shri Bal Ram son of Shri Gobind Ram, resident of village Sadewala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Axis Bank Ltd., Branch at Rania, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., ABW Towers, Unit No. 511-512, 5th Floor, M.G. Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurugram- 122001 through its Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. K.R. Taak, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is an agriculturist and is having about 25 Kanals 6 Marlas land being 4711/23607 share of total land measuring 129 kanals 6 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 287, Khatuni No. 466, Sq. No. 43 Killa No. 25/2 (0-10), Sq. No. 44 Killa No. 16 (8-0), 17(8-0), 18(8-0), 19(8-0),
20/1 (2-4), 24/2 (6-0), 25(8-0), Sq. No. 45 Killa No. 20(8-0), 21(8-0), Sq. No. 50 Killa No. 1(8-0), 8(8-0), 9/1 (4-0), 9/2 (4-0), 10(8-0), Sq. No. 51 Killa No. 4(8-0), 5(8-0), 6(8-0), 7(8-0), 342/4(0-12) situated at village Sadewala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. That complainant has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on her above said agriculture land vide account No. 917030025437988. It is further averred that Government of India had launched a crop insurance scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for the agriculturists and as per insurance scheme, a collaboration between the banks and insurance companies was done to insure the crops of farmers who have availed KCC limit from the bank. That for insurance of crop of kharif, 2017, a sum of Rs.1394.25 was deducted by op no.1 from the above said account of complainant on 29.7.2017 and op no.1 had got insured the crop from op no.2 under the collaboration scheme for any kind of damage to the crop of complainant. That complainant sown cotton crop in kharif, 2017 and was relaxed qua the insurance of the same with op no.2 for which amount of insurance premium deducted by op no.1 was transferred to op no.2 by op no.1. It is further averred that op no.1 did not provide copy of insurance policy to complainant despite her request and op no.1 stated that it might take sometime and that otherwise also entry in the passbook/ statement of account regarding deduction of premium is a proof in the hands of account holder and as such complainant did not bother about the insurance policy papers in her name. That crop of kharif, 2017 in the village of complainant was destroyed/ damaged on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and similarly crops of complainant have also been damaged and as such complainant is entitled to get compensation on account of damages caused to her crops to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per acre. That complainant approached the ops and requested for the claim of damages to her crops but on all the occasions the ops asked the complainant to wait stating that process of claims take some time to accomplish. Meanwhile, op no.1 has again deducted premium in the month of December, 2017 for insurance of rabi crop of 2017-2018. That even after passing of more than one and half years, the complainant did not get claim for damages of crop of kharif, 2017 whereas some villagers have already got compensation within a year. The complainant contacted the ops in this regard but in vain. That it appears that both the ops in collusion with each other have deliberately done so for causing loss to the complainant with a malafide intention which amounts to gross negligence of service on the part of ops. That complainant again approached the ops and requested them to compensate her but the ops about a week ago flatly refused to admit the genuine claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has applied to the answering op for providing financial assistance as KCC limit vide application dated 26.10.2016. She had proposed in her application that she will sow crop of paddy in kharif. Answering op has provided her facility of cash credit on the viability of paddy crop. If she has changed the crop, then it was her duty to inform the answering op. It is further submitted that amount of premium of Rs.1394.25 for insurance has been debited from account of complainant on 29.7.2017 and same has been transferred to op no.2 for insurance of crop of complainant under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It is further submitted that insurance company has not raised any objection and accepted the premium for insurance of crop of complainant. Hence, it is presumed that crops of complainant have been insured and insurance company is liable to compensate the complainant regarding any loss caused to complainant. If insurance company has not insured the crops of complainant, then it was their duty to refund the amount of insurance premium. It is further submitted that in case they have not refunded the premium, it means that they have accepted the premium and are liable to compensate the complainant. After acceptance of premium, the matter of claim etc. is in between insurance company and the farmer. It is further submitted that as per Haryana Govt. Notification dated 30.3.2018, it is presumed that insurance company has insured the crops of complainant after accepting premium. It is the duty of op no.2 to provide copy of insurance policy to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Sadewala, Tehsil and District Sirsa due to the reason mentioned in the loss assess report “Rains not lead to Inundation” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground given in the loss assess report alone. It is further submitted that insurance company cannot be questioned for proposal related disputes. The role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done either by complainant himself or by bank of complainant. In the present complaint, complainant is claiming for cotton crop, but alleged loss to the crop was not covered under the reason “Inundation and Hailstorm”. It is further clarified that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers. If any mistake is done by bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount. It is further submitted that it is clarified that except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalized by government agencies on the basis of yield of crop and thereafter, claims were to be paid to bank of farmers. The insurance company is playing a role of implementing agency in the scheme in accordance with guidelines prescribed by Government. Further more, in localized claims, three perils are covered under the scheme i.e. Hailstorm, Landslide and Inundation affecting isolated farms in the notified area. For localized claims, there was a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. After intimation of claim, necessary survey of affected area had to be conducted by surveyor for decision of claim of farmers. It is further submitted that it is not an individual insurance policy like other insurance policies rather it is a group insurance scheme in accordance with agreed terms and conditions of scheme which are binding on all of concerned related to the scheme. The complainant should have approached to DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and the decision of said department would be binding on all state Government/ Insurance Company/ Bank and farmers. But instead of filing complaint or grievance before DAC & FW department, the complainant has approached this Forum by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme and thus, present complaint cannot be adjudicated before this Forum. It is further submitted that complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of crop and thus, connected story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim. Merely allegation of claim intimation is not enough to establish that loss had actually occurred. Further, in absence of immediate intimation of claim, survey of damage field could not be conducted and therefore, it is almost impossible to determine quantification of loss. As per guidelines of scheme, immediate intimation was to be given within 48 hours but complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss of crop which reveals violation of terms and conditions of scheme. Other preliminary objections regarding non submission of proof of loss or weather report, limited coverage as per scheme, yield basis claims are decided by Government, no survey no quantification of loss, no privity of contract, non impleading of necessary parties and involvement of complicated facts and law are involved are also taken. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and above said pleas are also reiterated. It is submitted that claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss was occurred due to “Rains” but the same is not leading to Inundation, which is covered for loss under the scheme and complainant has made a false, bogus and baseless story just to grab the compensation. With these averments, prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant and op no.1 then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which she has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. She has also furnished copy of pass book Ex.C1, copy of jamabandi for year 2016-2017 Ex.C2, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C3, copy of pass book of Raja Ram Ex.C4, copy of jamabandi Ex.C5 and copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C6. On the other hand, opposite party no.1 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Sonu Dhaka, Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1 and copy of loan application form Ex.R2, copy of statement of account Ex.R3 and copy of certificate of bank Ex.R4. OP no.2 did not lead any evidence.
7. As per allegations of complainant, she had sown crop of cotton in her agricultural land in kharif, 2017 and same was got insured from op no.2 through op no.1 which deducted amount of Rs.1394.25 as insurance premium from KCC account of complainant which is evident from copy of pass book Ex.C1. The complainant has also tendered copy of jamabandi Ex.C2 to prove her ownership. But perusal of evidence of op no.1 reveals that op no.1 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Sonu Dhaka, Manager & Principal Officer Ex.R1 in which he has specifically deposed that complainant has applied to op bank for providing financial assistance of Rs. 5,50,000/- as KCC limit vide application dated 26.10.2016 and had proposed in application that she will sow crop of paddy in kharif. The bank has provided facility of cash credit on the viability of paddy crop. If she has changed the crop then it was her duty to inform the bank. The op no.1 has also produced copy of loan application form Ex.R2 in which pattern of crop in kharif is mentioned as paddy and wheat in rabi and the same bears thumb impression of complainant Chander Kala. The complainant has not placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that complainant at the time of advancement of loan did not give the schedule of above said crop to the op bank. The complainant has also not placed on record any copy of khasra girdawari to prove the fact of sowing crop of cotton and has only placed on file copy of khasra girdawari pertaining to one Raja Ram showing crop of cotton. The op bank had deducted the premium from the account of complainant and got paddy crop insured for kharif, 2017 and never got insured the cotton crop from the insurance company as claimed by complainant. Learned counsel for complainant has not disputed Ex.R2 by which complainant had filled proposal at the time of taking loan that she will sow crop of paddy in kharif season. The complainant has not placed on record any document or letter of intimation vide which she had informed op no.1 regarding change of crop from paddy to cotton. Since cotton crop of complainant was not got insured by complainant nor any intimation qua change of pattern of crop was ever given by complainant to op bank, so it appears that complainant is not entitled for loss of cotton crop which was not duly insured with insurance company and for which premium was not deducted by op bank.
8. In view of above discussion, it appears that complainant has failed to prove her allegations in the complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence. As such, 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 in open Forum. President,
Dated:04.03.2020. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
