BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 646 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 13.11.2019.
Date of Decision : 04.05.2023.
- Sada Bai aged about 70 years wife of Sh. Ram Chand,
- Jagdish Chander aged about 44 years son of Sh. Ram Chand,
- Vikas Kumar, aged about 37 years son of Sh. Ram Chand, all residents of Ward No.1, Bhuna Road, V.P.O. Mehna Khera, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
- Bank of Baroda Branch Jiwan Nagar, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager/ Authorized person.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited 4th Floor, The Statement Plot No.149 Industrial Area, Phase-I, Next to Homtel Hotel, Chandigarh- 16000 through its Director.
- Deputy Director of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Sirsa.
...…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.
Present: Sh. Vikas Kharia, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, 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
The present joint complaint has been filed by complainants against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the loss of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017.
2. The complainants have alleged that they are agriculturists having 22 acres of land situated at village Mehna Khera, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018. The complainant no.1 is having account no. 21200500000555, complainant no.2 is having account no. 21200500000560 and complainant no.3 is having his account no. 21200500000559 with op no.1 and they have availed KCC facilities from the op no.1 on their above said land. It is further averred that complainants sown crops of cotton in about 15 acres of land and as per crop insurance scheme for farmers namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna of Central Govt. of India, a sum of Rs.4125/- from the account of complainant no.1, Rs.1849.74 from the account of complainant no.2 and Rs.1953.95 from the account of complainant no.3 was debited by op no.1 on 31.07.2017 for insurance of their crops with op no.2 but op no.1 did not supply the copy of insurance policy to the complainants. That crop of Kharif, 2017 in their village including their crop was damaged on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and therefore, complainants are entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per acre. It is further averred that despite several requests made by complainants, the claim for the damage of their cotton crop has not been paid by the ops due to which they have suffered great financial losses and harassment. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding non serving of prior notice, estoppal, maintainability, cause of action, concealment of true and material facts, jurisdiction, complaint is hopelessly time barred, non joinder of necessary parties and that answering op has not charged any penny on account of any insurance for itself from the complainants, hence the complainants are not entitled to claim any compensation from answering op. On merits, it is submitted that complainants have availed loan facility from the answering op separately and each of them is having separate loan account with answering op and crops of each complainant have been got insured separately by paying separate insurance premium of their crops sown in their respective field. It is further submitted that amount received by insurance company from answering op has not been refunded till today. Hence, it is the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the loss of the crops of complainants, if any because the crops of complainants have been insured with it. Remaining contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 filed its written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding not lodging of claim, 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. On merits, it is submitted that no intimation ever received regarding the loss of crop from the complainants as well as any other agencies and version of complainants that they 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 complainants have 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 complainants 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 complainants have 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 complainants. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.3 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections as that of op no.2. It is submitted that except crop cutting experience report or survey report of loss of crop may be prepared by the 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. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. Complainants in evidence have tendered affidavit of Jagdish Chander complainant as Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Baljinder Singh Ex.CW2/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9.
7. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sahil Chawla, Branch Manager as Ex.R1 and copies of documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R6. Similarly, op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R5 and copies of documents Ex.R6 and Ex.R7. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing opportunities.
8. We have heard learned counsel for complainants, learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 and Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.
9. The complainants have claimed insurance claim for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. According to complainants as their cotton crop of kharif, 2017 was got insured by op no.1 bank through op no.2 and same was damaged, therefore, they are entitled to claim amount for the damage of their insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. However, at the time of availing crop loan from op no.1 bank, the complainants have declared the pattern of their crop in the loan applications as paddy in kharif season and wheat in rabi season. The copies of their loan applications have been placed on file by op no.1 bank as Ex.R4 to Ex.R6. The loan was also sanctioned by the op no.1 bank to the complainants at the viability of paddy crops. Thereafter, if complainants have changed the cotton crop from paddy crop, then it was their duty to inform the op no.1 bank, so that their cotton crop could be insured with insurance company. Since complainants are claiming insurance claim for the damage of their cotton crop which was not insured, therefore, the complainants are not entitled to any claim amount and they are estopped from filing the present complaint by their own act and conduct. Accordingly, the complaint of complainants deserves dismissal.
10. 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 free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President,
Dated: 04.05.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
