BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 455 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 13.08.2019.
Date of Decision : 15.09.2022.
Ranvir Singh (aged about 40 years) son of Sh. Sultan son of Sh. Sheokaran, resident of village Keharwala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Bank of Baroda, Branch Sri Jiwan Nagar, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Bank of Baroda, Regional Office: 628, Grand Trunk Road, Sector-5, Karnal- 132001 Haryana through its Regional Manager/ Authorized person.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. ABW Towers, Unit No. 511-512, 5th Floor, M.G. Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurugram- 122001 through M.D./ authority person.
...…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. Rakesh Pareek, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017.
2. The brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist having land measuring about 13 kanals being 1/2 share out of total land measuring 25 kanals 15 marlas (as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) situated in village Keharwala, Tehsil Rania District Sirsa. The complainant obtained the KCC facility from op no.1. The op no.1 bank deducted premium amount of Rs.694.74 on 31.07.2017 from account of complainant bearing No. 21200500000534 for insuring crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 with op no.3 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The complainant further alleged that complainant sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 which was damaged to the extent of 100% due to natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and as their area has been notified by State Government for the benefits of the scheme, the State Government directed the Agriculture department to inspect the spot and to ascertain the damages caused to the insured crops of the farmers and to submit report. Accordingly, Agriculture department visited the agricultural land of complainant as well as other agriculturists and duly inspected the spot and found that cotton crop of complainant of 2017 has been damaged to the extent of 100% and a report in this regard has been submitted to higher authorities and ops no.1 and 2. The complainant suffered loss of Rs.80,000/- approximately on account of damages to the insured crop and op no.3 had to pay the insurance amount. The complainant approached to the ops and requested them to disburse the amount of compensation for the losses suffered by him but the ops kept on lingering the matter on one false pretext or the other and now about a week ago, the ops have refused to disburse any such amount saying that cotton crop of complainant has never been insured by them rather the paddy crop of complainant has been insured and thus, he is not entitled to the compensation whereas actually, the complainant has been sowing crop of cotton in his land since beginning. He has never sown paddy crop in his land and the area in which land of complainant falls is not paddy area on account of which none of the farmers sown the crop of paddy. It is further averred that premium has been deducted by op no.1 from the account of complainant qua the insurance of his cotton crop and has been paid to op no.3 but op no.3 was not ready to accept the version of complainant. The complainant also approached to op no.1 in this regard whereupon op no.1 disclosed that due to mistake crop of complainant has been wrongly mentioned as paddy crop instead of cotton crop in the proposal form sent to op no.3 by op no.1 alongwith the premium and they assured that said mistake would be got rectified by them and amount of compensation shall be disbursed to the complainant at the earliest. Since then complainant has been making rounds to the offices of the ops but they are avoiding the requests of complainant and now about two days ago they have refused to admit the claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Ops no.1 and 2 filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding non serving of prior notice, estoppal, maintainability, cause of action, concealment of true and material facts, jurisdiction, no consumer dispute, complaint is hopelessly time barred and that answering ops have not charged any penny for themselves on account of any insurance, hence there has been no liability of answering ops to pay any compensation on account of loss of crops to the complainant. On merits, it is submitted that crops of complainant had been insured with op no.3 and it is the op no.3 who has received the insurance premium, hence, it is the liability of op no.3 to indemnify the loss of the crops of complainant, if any. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint ops no.1 and 2 made.
4. Op no.3 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 also submitted that in the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for cotton crop of village Keharwala, Tehsil Rania District Sirsa but the 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 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.
5. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copies of documents i.e. statement of account Ex.C1, jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C2, khasra girdawari Ex.C3.
6. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Naveen Sharma, Branch Manager as Ex.R1.
7. Op no.3 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
9. The grievance of the complainant is that his crop of cotton of 2017 which was got insured by ops no.1 and 2 through op no.3 after deducting premium amount from his account was damaged but he did not receive any insurance claim amount from ops. In order to prove his case, he has furnished his affidavit as Ex. CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. The complainant in order to prove his ownership over the land has also placed on record copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013. He has also placed on file copy of statement of account as Ex.C1, the perusal of which reveals that on 31.7.2017, premium amount of Rs.694.74 was deducted from his account by op no.1 bank for insuring the crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017. According to the complainant, whole of the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 was damaged. The ops have not categorically denied the fact that there was no damage to the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in village Keharwala. Moreover, op no.3 insurance company has admitted in its written version that cross loss occurred due to rain. So, the version of complainant that there was damage to his cotton crop in 13 kanals of land in Kharif, 2017 is to be believed and complainant is entitled to claim amount.
10. Now, the question arises that to what amount, the complainant is entitled for and which of the opposite parties is liable to pay the claim amount?. The complainant claims an amount of Rs.80,000/- on account of damage of cotton crop in about 13 kanals of land. But however, in similar cases we have already assessed claim amount at the rate of Rs.16,500/- per acre. Since the complainant is owing about 13 kanals of land, therefore, he is entitled to total lump sum claim amount of Rs.26,500/- for the damage of his cotton crop in 13 kanals of land at the rate of Rs.16,500/- per acre.
11. The complainant has categorically stated that he is sowing cotton crop in Kharif season and their area is not fit for paddy crop but however, op no.1 bank stated to him that due to their mistake they have got insured his paddy crop with op no.3. The ops no.1 and 2 have simply denied the said version of complainant but have not specifically averred that they did not commit any mistake regarding insuring of paddy crop instead of cotton crop with op no.3. The ops no.1 and 2 have also not proved on record that as the complainant declared that he will sow paddy crop in Kharif season they got insured paddy crop of complainant with op no.3. Even the ops no.1 and 2 have not placed on file any declaration regarding sowing of specific crop in Kharif season or loan record of the complainant for availing crop loan and have failed to prove on record that at the time of availing loan facility, what crop to be sown was declared by him. From the record produced on record by complainant, it is duly proved that area where the agricultural land of complainant is situated is not fit for sowing paddy crop. The op no.3 insurance company has also specifically averred that op no.3 is not liable for any mistake done by bank of complainant. Since, op bank at the time of insuring crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 with op no.3 due to mistake have got insured paddy crop instead of cotton crop and as cotton crop of complainant was not insured with op no.3 insurance company, op no.3 is not liable to pay claim amount and ops no.1 and 2 are only liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.
12. Keeping in view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint against the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and direct the ops no.1 and 2 to pay above said claim amount of Rs.26,500/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which ops no.1 and 2 will be liable to pay interest @6% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.26,500/- from the date of this order till actual payment. We further direct the ops no.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said period. However, complaint qua op no.3 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 15.09.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
