BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 342 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 28.06.2019
Date of Decision : 05.09.2023.
Chiranji Lal aged about 57 years son of Sh. Beg Raj son of Sh. Hari Ram, resident of village Nathusari Kalan, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Axis Bank, Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
2. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………..MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anjani Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.2.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint initially against the opposite parties no.1 and 2 (herein after referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and thereafter got amended the complaint by impleading ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited as op no.3.
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist having land measuring 10 kanals 1 marla 4 sarsai i.e. 93/582 share of the land measuring 63 kanals 1 marla ( as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) situated in village Nathusari Kalan, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017. The complainant had sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 season. It is further averred that complainant availed crop loan of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under Kisan Credit Limit facility from op no.1 by mortgaging his above said land and as per policy of the Government, the op no.1 got insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 with the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. In this regard op no.1 deducted premium amount of Rs.536.25 on 26.07.2017 from the account of complainant and thus his crop was insured with op no.3. It is further averred that cotton crop of 2017 of complainant in his above said land was destroyed due to climate conditions. The op no.2 got conducted survey of fields of his village and submitted its report to ops no.1 and 3 and thereafter op no.3 settled the claim of farmers of village Nathusari Kalan but strangely declined the complainant and few other farmers to pay any insurance claim and he has been informed that he has not been paid any compensation amount as he has sown paddy crop and not cotton crop in his field. The op no.1 has provided detail of insurance of paddy crop and not of cotton crop and thereby op no.3 refused to entertain claim of complainant. It is further averred that complainant raised the loan from op no.1 and got insured his cotton crop of 2017 with op no.3 and paid the premium of Rs.536.25 for insurance of his cotton crop and not of paddy crop and as such no paddy crop was ever got insured by complainant and it is negligence of op no.1 which has submitted a wrong report of paddy crop to op no.3. That in this manner, ops no.1 and 3 have committed gross deficiency in services towards complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment. The complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as well as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses from ops. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op after deducting the amount as insurance premium from the account of complainant remitted the same to the insurance company. 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. The only responsibility of the answering op to deduct the amount of insurance premium and to remit the same to insurance company which was duly discharged by answering op. As per the norms of the policy, the insurance company after the 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. Moreover, at the time of moving the loan application, the complainant had mentioned in his loan application that paddy crop is standing at the spot, but thereafter the complainant never intimated the bank about the change of crop over his mortgaged land. If the complainant would have informed the bank about the change of crop in a particular crop season, then the bank should have changed the crop and should have informed the same to the insurance company. It is further submitted that data about the standing crop over the mortgaged land was supplied by answering op bank to the insurance company which was supplied by complainant to answering op. The insurance claim was to be paid by insurance company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.2 is only liable to conduct Crop cutting experience and has submitted his report according to the CCE’s which is prescribed in the operational guidelines of PMFBY. The yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. OP no.3 on being impleaded and on notice appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done either by complainant himself or by bank of complainant. That complainant is claiming for paddy crop of village Nathusari Kalan, District Sirsa but the alleged loss to the crop was not covered. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10.
7. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.
8. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sonu Dhaka, Branch Manager as Ex.RW4. Op no.3 did not lead any evidence despite several opportunities.
9. During the course of arguments report/ letter of Deputy Director of Agriculture department, Sirsa placed on file on behalf of complainant. The loan application of complainant has also been produced on record by op no.1 bank.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
11. The complainant has claimed insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of kharif, 2017. However, during the course of arguments learned counsel for op no.1 bank has placed on file loan application of complainant for availing crop loan though as per direction of this Commission and from the said loan application of complainant it is evident that complainant himself declared to the op no.1 bank that he will sow paddy crop in Kharif season. The crop loan was also sanctioned and paid to the complainant as per above said declaration of paddy crop in kharif season because it is very well known fact that crop loan for paddy crop is sanctioned more than cotton crop. So when the complainant has availed loan for paddy crop as per his application itself, therefore, now complainant cannot claim that op no.1 bank has given wrong report to the insurance company regarding crop of complainant because complainant has not proved on record that he ever informed to op no.1 bank about change of crop through any letter/ written intimation. As per operational guidelines of PMFBY, for any reason if a farmer changes the crop planned earlier, he should intimate the change to insurance company up to two working days before the cut-off-date for enrolment/ buying insurance through financial institution/ channel partner/ insurance intermediary/ directly as the case may be, alongwith difference in premium payable, if any, accompanied with sowing certificate issued by concerned village/ sub district level official of the State. However, in the present case the complainant has failed to prove on record that he ever informed regarding change of crop to op no.1 bank. So, the op no.1 bank is not at fault in this regard. Since no cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 was insured and no premium for the same was deducted, therefore, complainant is not entitled to any compensation from any of the ops. As such complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct.
12. 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 after due compliance.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 05.09.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
