BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 433 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 06.08.2019.
Date of Decision : 25.01.2023.
Ram Sawroop (aged about 62 years) son of Sh. Rawat Ram @ Rawat son of Sh. Jot Ram, resident of village Chadiwal, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Bank of India, Branch Begu Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Bank of India, Corporate Office, Star House C-5, G-Block, Bandra, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai through its 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. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Rakesh Pareek, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Gupta, 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 140 kanals 12 marlas (as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) situated in village Chadiwal, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa. The complainant obtained the KCC facility from op no.1. The op no.1 bank deducted premium amount of Rs.7655.13 on 31.07.2017 from account of complainant bearing No. 676532110000150 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.4,40,000/- 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 no cause of action, no locus standi, maintainability, concealment of true and material facts etc. On merits, it is submitted that an amount of Rs.7655.13 was debited to the account of complainant and was credited to the portal under PMFBY for insurance. At the time of grant of the loan, the complainant had himself stated that he is sowing paddy crops and accordingly the particulars were mentioned in the portal. The complainant never disclosed regarding the sowing of Narma crops as alleged. It is further submitted that complainant has not placed on record any report regarding the loss caused to the crop of complainant and it is incorrect that complainant usually gets narma crop of Rs.25,000/- per acre. It is further submitted that the particulars of crop were given as per the sanction inspection report. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua 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, complainant is claiming for cotton crop 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. pass book of one Jai Pal son of Sheo Chand Ex.C1, jamabandi for the year 206-2017 Ex.C2, khasra girdawari for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, statement of account of complainant Ex.C5.
6. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Bajrang Sharma, Branch Manager as Ex.R1 and copy of Pre Sanction Inspection report Ex.R2.
7. Op no.3 did not lead any evidence despite availing opportunities.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. From the copy of statement of account of complainant Ex.C5, it is evident that on 31.07.2017, an amount of Rs.7655.13 was deducted by op no.1 from the account of complainant for insuring the Kharif crop of 2017 of the complainant with op no.3 and admittedly the said amount was remitted to op no.3 for insurance of crop of complainant. Though complainant has averred that he had sown cotton crop in whole of his agricultural land measuring 140 kanals 12 marlas in Kharif, 2017 and has alleged that he sustained loss of Rs.4,40,000/- on account of damage to his cotton crop, but however, the perusal of khasra girdawari of year 2017-2018 placed by complainant himself as Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 reveals that besides cotton crop, he had also sown other crops like paddy, Guar and on small portion of land he had sown cotton crop. In this regard, ops no.1 and 2 have also placed on record Pre Sanction Inspection report Ex,R2, the perusal of which also reveals that complainant is sowing cotton in 2.70 acres of land and other crops in remaining land and on the basis of this report, he was granted KCC facility by the ops bank. So, it is proved on record that complainant had sown cotton crop in only 2.70 acres of land and not in his whole land. In so far as damage to his cotton crop in 2.70 acres of land in Kharif, 2017 is concerned, the complainant has placed on record copy of pass book of one Sh. Jaipal son of Sh. Sheo Chand, resident of village Chadiwal i.e. his co-villager and the said pass book reveals that on 3.5.2019 said Jaipal also received claim amount of Rs.95,544.01 from the insurance company on account of damage to his crop of Kharif, 2017 and therefore, it is proved on record that complainant who is also having his land in village Chadiwal also suffered loss on account of damage to his cotton crop in Kharif, 2017. Therefore, complainant is also entitled to claim amount for the loss of his cotton crop in 2.70 acres of land from insurance company i.e. op no.3. The complainant has claimed claim amount at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre but however there is no concrete evidence on file that complainant is entitled to claim amount at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre and in such cases we have already assessed and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.16,500/- per acre to the farmers of the area of complainant. So, complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.44,550/- (Rs.16,500X2.70) as compensation for the loss of his cotton crop in 2.70 acres of land in Kharif, 2017 from op no.3 insurance company. However, no liability of any kind to pay any amount to ops no.1 and 2 is made out.
10. In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint against op no.3 insurance company and direct the op no.3 to pay a sum of Rs.44,500/- as claim amount to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop in Kharif, 2017. We also direct the op no.3 to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. The op no.3 is liable 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 receive the above said principal amount of Rs.44,500/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. However, complaint qua ops no.1 and 2 is hereby 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: 25.01.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
