BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 505 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 28.08.2019
Date of Decision : 18.05.2023.
Parmod Kumar son of Shri Bharat Bhushan, resident of Vill. Jandwala Bishnoian, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Axis Bank Limited through its Manager Branch at Mandi Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa.
2. Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh- 160002.
3. Deputy Agriculture Officer, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. B.S. Gill, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist having land measuring 29 kanals ( as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) situated in village Jandwala, Tehsil Goriwala, District Sirsa vide jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 and 2017-18. He is having his kisan credit card account number 915030057437592 with op no.1 and has availed loan facility under the said card. It is further averred that as per scheme of the Govt. of India namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, the crops of the complainant are being insured by op no.1 bank continuously with the insurance company being loanee farmer. That similarly the crop of Kharif, 2017 of the complainant was also got insured by op no.1 with insurance company after paying premium amount of Rs.2228.60 from the account of complainant. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.535.43 as a premium was also deducted by op no.1 for insurance of his rabi crop on 26.12.2017 but same was mischievously re-deposited in the account of complainant without any endorsement. It is further averred that op no.1 also deducted premium for insurance of his crops of Kharif and Rabi 2018. That whole of the cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 sown by complainant in his agricultural land was damaged due to rainy flood/ natural calamity and he suffered heavy loss and as such he is entitled to claim amount of Rs.30,000/- per acre from the ops. That complainant approached the ops many times and requested to pay the claim for damages to his crop but ops have failed to indemnify his loss. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.535.43 has been debited in the account of complainant as premium for Rabi crop of 2017. An amount of Rs.2110.47 has been debited in the account of complainant on 26.7.2018 to pay the premium for insurance of Kharif crop 2018 but complainant has not provided the KYC documents to the insurance company, hence said amount has been refunded to him due to non submission of aadhar vide entry dated 22.05.2019. It is further submitted that then answering op again debited an amount of Rs.2252.04 in the account of complainant on 12.07.2019 to pay the insurance premium of Kharif crop, 2019. Said amount has been transferred to op no.2 for insurance of crop and nothing has been heard from op no.2 regarding acceptance of premium, hence it is presumed that insurance company op no.2 has accepted the premium and hence, op no.2 is liable to compensate the complainant regarding any loss caused to the complainant. If op no.2 has not insured the crops of complainant, then it was their duty to refund the amount of insurance premium. It is further submitted that after acceptance of premium by op no.2 without any objection as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018, the matter of claim etc. is between the insurance company and farmer. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 also filed its written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage of alleged loss, insurance company cannot be questioned for proposal related disputes, not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, non intimation, 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 etc. It is further submitted 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 and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that no intimation ever received regarding the loss of crop from the complainant as well as any other agencies and version of complainant that he approached to the officers of op no.1 is false one. However, the claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss occurred due to Rains but 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. It is also 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/ Banks and farmers. But instead of filing complaint or grievance before DAC & FW department, the complainant has approached this Forum with bad intention by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme and thus, present complaint cannot be adjudicated before this Forum in absence of filing of complaint before appropriate agency by the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.3 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections as raised by op no.2. It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or survey of loss of crop is to be made/ done by answering op and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of the answering op in this regard. It is further submitted that yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by answering op within specific time period as prescribed in the operational guidelines of the Government of India. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C1, legal notice dated 01.08.2019 Ex.C2, postal receipts Ex.C3, Ex.C4, statement of account Ex.C5, application Ex.C6, application of bank moved to Tehsildar Goriwala for entrance and confirmation of mutation Ex.C7 and adhar card Ex.C8.
6. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sonu Dhaka, Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1 and copies of documents i.e. loan application Ex.R2 and statement of account Ex.R3.
7. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R1 and copies of documents i.e. Haryana Govt. notification dated 13.06.2017 Ex.R2 and village wise tabulation sheet Ex.R3.
8. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.
10. The complainant has sought insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 sown in 29 kanals of land, but however, he has not placed on file khasra girdawari to prove the fact that in how much area of cotton crop was sown or whether actually cotton crop was sown in whole of the agricultural land measuring 29 kanals. Further more in the complainant, he is claiming that he is having 29 kanals of land whereas at the time of obtaining agricultural loan, complainant hypothecated his four acres of land and therefore for ascertaining in how much area of cotton crop was sown by him in Kharif, 2017, the production of khasra girdawari was necessary and in absence of the same actual loss cannot be ascertained to the complainant. Moreover, the premium amount of Rs.2028.60 deducted by op no.1 from the account of complainant for insuring his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 on 29.07.2017 was reversed back in his account and the reason of reversion of the said amount may be due to the fact that complainant has not provided the KYC documents to the op no.1 bank. Therefore, cotton crop of kharif, 2017 of complainant could not be insured and therefore, op no.1 bank is not at fault because op no.1 bank once deducted the premium amount from the account of complainant for insuring his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 but as the said amount could not be transferred to the insurance company due to above said technicality, the same was remitted back in the account of complainant. So, the complainant is not entitled to any insurance claim for the alleged damage of his cotton crop of kharif, 2017 which was not insured with op no.2 insurance company.
11. 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 President,
Dated: 18.05.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
