BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 620 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 16.10.2019.
Date of Decision : 25.07.2022.
Kurda aged about 77 years sonof Shri Nanak son of Sh. Ratna, resident of village Jamal, Tehsil Nathusari Chaupta, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Axis Bank, Sangwan Chowk Branch, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025, through its authorized signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. M. K. Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist and is owner in possession of land measuring 90 kanals 9 marlas i.e. 25 kanals 6 marlas land situated in village Jamal, Block Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa and land measuring 65 kanals 3 marlas being 1/3 share of land measuring 195 kanals 9 marlas situated in village Baruwali IInd District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018. That above said 90 kanal 9 marlas land of complainant is mortgaged with op no.1 as complainant has raised crop loan from op no.1 vide loan account no. 915030023702967. It is further averred that as per Government policy, the bank op no.1 had to get the crop grown in the mortgaged land insured with some insurance company and to deduct the premium from the said crop loan account of the borrower. That accordingly on 29.07.2017 op no.1 deducted an amount of Rs.6306.60 as insurance premium from the account of complainant for insurance of crop of Kharif, 2017 but policy was not delivered to the complainant. It is further averred that average yield from the said crop remained quite below than the threshold yield and therefore farmers of village Jamal and Baruwali IInd whose crops were insured received insurance claim amount. The complainant also received amount of Rs.1,48254/- on 26.10.2018 as claim amount for his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 season but that was less amount that the amount which should have been received as per policy of PMFBY and complainant was entitled to receive the amount in December, 2017 and as such complainant is also entitled to receive interest on this amount from December, 2017 to December, 2018. It is further averred that as per policy, the insurance claim for the crop of village Baruwali IInd was Rs.1,17,632/- and for village Jamal was Rs.56,353/- and total of both comes out Rs.1,73,975/-, therefore, complainant got less amount of Rs.25,721/-. That complainant in order to get proper compensation for his insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 visited the op no.1 but op no.1 did not pay any heed to the same and put off the matter on false pretext. That ops have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and have also caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to him. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that op no.1 has debited an amount of Rs.6306.60 on 29.07.2017 in the account of complainant and transferred the same to op no.2 for payment of insurance premium for crop of Khrif, 2017. It is further submitted that op no.2 has given claim of Kharif, 2017 to the complainant on 26.7.2017 (not actually 26.7.2017) for the amount of Rs.1,48,24.84 and said amount has been credited in the account of complainant. The compensation for the loss of crops have to be paid by op no.2 and if op no.2 has made late payment to the complainant, then op no.2 has to explain the cause of delay. Moreover, op no.2 is liable to compensate the complainant for delay, if any and matter of compensation regarding crop insurance is between the insurance company and farmer/ complainant. 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 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Baruwali Khera, 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 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.
5. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copies of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, reports of Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Sirsa Ex.C4, Ex.C5 and copies of statements of account Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 and copy of application Ex.C8.
6. On the other hand, Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Som Dhaka, Manager and Principal Officer as Ex.R1, copy of statement of account Ex.R2.
7. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that complainant is owner of 90 kanals 9 marlas of agricultural land situated in above said two villages i.e. Jamal and Baruwali IInd District Sirsa and he has availed crop loan from op no.1 by mortgaging his above said land. He has further contended that for covering risk of damage of crop of complainant for the welfare of farmer/ complainant and in order to secure loan amount, the Government has launched Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna according to which crop of loanee farmers are to be compulsorily insured by the banker of loanee farmer. Accordingly, op no.1 also got insured the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainant with op no.2 by deducting an amount of Rs.6306.60 from the loan account of complainant. He has futher contended that complainant suffered loss of crop in Kharif, 2017 season as yield of cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 remained quite below than the threshold yield in the block of villages Jamal and Baruwali and as such complainant was entitled to receive the claim amount from op no.2 insurance company as per formula given in the PMFBY scheme and as per said formula, the complainant was to received total amount of Rs.2,02,168/- from op no.2 whereas op no.2 has made payment of claim amount of Rs.1,48,254/- and therefore, complainant is entitled to remaining amount of Rs.52,914/- alongwith up to date interest and complainant is also entitled to interest on the above said paid amount of Rs.1,48,254/- for the period 1.12.2017 to 25.10.2018 as said amount was also paid after delay i.e. on 26.10.2018. He has further contended that in the complaint, the complainant inadvertently and wrongly claimed remaining amount of Rs.25,721/- as they have wrongly calculated the said amount and actually complainant was entitled to remaining amount of Rs.52,914/- as per formula given in PMFBY. Learned counsel for complainant has further contended that this Commission can grant any other relief in addition to the claim of complainant which it finds proper and appropriate and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 has contended that op no.1 bank has discharged its duty by insuring the crop of complainant with op no.2 as per PMFBY and now the matter of remaining claim amount, if any and compensation is between complainant and op no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
11. Learned counsel for op no.2 has contended that claim of complainant has already been settled and paid and op no.2 is not liable to pay any other amount to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
12. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
13. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint and in order to prove his ownership over the agricultural land in villages Jamal and Baruwali IInd District Sirsa has placed on file copies of jamabanadis for the year 2017-2018 as Ex.C2 and Ex.C3. Admittedly the complainant has also availed crop loan facility from op no.1. The complainant has also placed on record copy of statement of account Ex.C6, from which it is proved on record that on 29.7.2017, an amount of Rs.6306.60 was deducted from his account by op no.1 as insurance premium for paying the same to op no.2 insurance company for insurance of cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Further from the copy of statement of account Ex.C7, it is also proved on record that on 26.10.2018 an amount of Rs.1,48254.84 was credited in the account of complainant as claim settlement of Kharif, 2017 meaning thereby that ops have also admitted the loss of crop of complainant in Kharif, 2017. Moreover, complainant has also placed on file reports of Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa as Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 according to which the average yield of village Baruwali IInd was 241.73 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of Block Nathusari was 607.14 Kgs. per hectare and average yield of village Jamal was 156.44 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Nathusari was 607.14 Kgs. per hectare and as the average yield of both villages of complainant was less than threshold yield of block Nathusari, so as per operational guidelines of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna, there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2017 in his both villages Baruwali IInd and Jamal, District Sirsa.
14. Now the question arises whether complainant is entitled to any remaining claim amount for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 or not? For calculation of claim amount, a formula has been given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY which is as under:-
Threshold Yield minus Actyal Yield X Sum Insured.
Threshold yield
15. The complainant owns 25 kanals 6 marlas land in village Jamal which is equal to 1.28 hectare. As mentioned above, the threshold yield of block Nathusari was 607.14 Kgs. per hectare and actual yield of village Jamal was 156.44 Kgs. per hectare. Learned counsel for complainant during the course of arguments has also placed on file document regarding sum insured of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in which it is mentioned that sum insured for cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 was Rs.69,000/- per hectare and therefore, the calculation of the claim amount for the loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainant in village Jamal is as under:-
607.14 minus 156.44 multiple by
607.14 69000 X 1.28 hectare = Rs. 65,548/-.
16. From above calculation, it is evident that complainant was entitled to the claim amount of Rs.65,548/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in village Jamal. Now coming to the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in village Baruwali IInd District Sirsa, the complainant owns agricultural land measuring 65 kanals 3 marlas in this village Baruwali IInd, District Sirsa. As mentioned above, the threshold yield of block Nathusari was 607.14 Kgs. per hectare and actual yield of village Baruwali IInd was 241.73 Kgs. per hectare. In the document regarding sum insured of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 it is mentioned that sum insured for cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 was Rs.69,000/- per hectare and therefore, the calculation of the claim amount for the loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainant in village Baruwali IInd is as under:-
607.14 minus 241.73 multiple by
607.14 69000 X 3.29 hectare = Rs. 1,36,620/-.
17. From above said calculations of claim amounts of loss of cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2017 in his both villages Jamal and Baruwali IInd, it is evident that complainant was entitled to receive total amount of Rs. 2,02,168/- (Rs.65,548 + Rs.1,36,620/-) whereas an amount of Rs.1,48,254/- has been paid to the complainant by insurance company op no.2 and as such complainant is entitled to receive remaining amount of Rs.52,914/- from op no.2 insurance company and not amount of Rs.25,721/- as wrongly calculated by complainant in his complaint. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case especially the fact that op no.2 insurance company has already made payment of Rs.1,48,254/- by settling claim of complainant though made less payment, the complainant is not found entitled to interest on the above said amount of Rs.52,914/- as op no.2 insurance company has already tried to resolve the grievance of complainant to some extent. Further, complainant has not proved on record any deficiency of service on the part of op no.1 bank rather it is proved on record that no liability of any kind of op no.1 bank is made out against complainant as op no.1 bank has discharged its duty.
18. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against op no.2 and direct the opposite party no.2 insurance company to pay the remaining claim amount/ compensation of Rs.52,914/- to the complainant. We also direct the op no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. No other amount as compensation for harassment etc. is payable to the complainant by op no.2 insurance company as alleged/ demanded by complainant. However, op no.2 insurance company is directed to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @6% per annum on the said principle amount of Rs.52,914/- from the date of this order till actual realization and complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against op no.2 insurance company. The complaint qua op no.1 bank is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 25.07.2022. District Consumer Disputes
JK Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
