BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 430 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 06.08.2019.
Date of Decision : 15.09.2022.
Rai Singh S/o Sh. Rama (since deceased ) through his LRs (i) Shakuntla aged about 60 years widow, (ii) Vinod Kumar aged about 38 years son (iii) Promila aged about 34 years daughter of late Sh. Rai Singh, all residents of village Panniwala Mota, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Canara Bank, Branch Panniwala Mota, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Canara Bank, Regional Office: Kunjpura Road, 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 through LRs 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 Rai Singh (since deceased) was owner in possession of land measuring 65 kanals being 5/8 share of total land measuring 104 kanals comprised in Khewat No. 512 Khatuni No. 655 situated at village Panniwala Mota, Tehsil and District Sirsa. After his death, the aforesaid land was inherited by his aforesaid legal representatives. Said Rai Singh obtained KCC facility from op no.1. The op no.1 bank deducted premium amount of Rs. 4899/- on 29.07.2017 from account of complainant bearing No. 2050840001741 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.2,43,750/- 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 to provide any insurance facility to the complainant, hence they are not entitled to claim any compensation from answering ops. On merits, it is submitted that it is correct that Government of India has launched Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna under which the farmers who have availed crop loan facility are covered, hence on the request of complainant, the answering ops have got the crops of complainant as told by him insured with op no.3. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.4899/- has been transferred to the account of op no.3 on account of insurance premium for the insurance of crops of complainant as declared by him, after debiting the same to the loan account of complainant. Hence, the kharif crops of 2017 of the complainant were covered under the policy, It is further submitted that after some time, the answering op came to know that village of complainant has been wrongly uploaded, consequently the answering op requested the op no.3 for its correction. No report whatsoever on account of loss of any Narma crop of complainant has ever been submitted to the op no.3 by answering ops as alleged. The answering ops have no knowledge regarding any loss of crops of complainant. However, it is made clear that it is op no.3 who has to indemnify the loss of the complainant, if any being insurer. It is also submitted that amount of premium is still lying with op no.3 and op no.3 has not refunded the amount of premium to the answering ops. Hence, it is the liability of op no.3 to pay the compensation on account of loss of crops of complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are 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, the complainant is claiming for cotton crop of village Panniwala Mota, Tehsil and 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. Complainants have tendered affidavit of complainant Vinod Kumar Ex.CW1/A, copies of documents i.e. jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C1, khasra girdawari Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, statement of account Ex.C4, death certificate of Rai Singh Ex.C5, statement of account of Vinod Ex.C6, letter/ report of Agriculture department Ex.C7.
6. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Satnam Kamboj, Branch Manager and Principal Officer as Ex.RW1/A.
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 legal heirs/ representatives of deceased Rai Singh (now treated as complainants) is that crop of cotton of 2017 in 65 kanals of agricultural land of said Rai Singh (who died on 2.1.2018) which was got insured by ops no. 1 and 2 through op no.3 after deducting premium amount from his account was damaged and legal heirs of said Rai Singh are entitled to the claim amount for the damage of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. In order to prove their case, they have furnished affidavit of Vinod Kumar one of the LRs of deceased Rai Singh as Ex. CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. They have also placed on file copy of statement of account of said Rai Singh since deceased maintained with branch of ops no.1 and 2 at village Paniwala Mota, District Sirsa as Ex.C4, the perusal of which reveals that on 29.7.2017, premium amount of Rs.4899/- was deducted from his account by bank for insuring the crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017. According to the LRs (now complainants) of deceased Rai Singh, whole of the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 was damaged and in this regard they have also placed on file report of Agriculture Department, Sirsa Ex.C7 according to which the average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in village Panniwala Mota, District Sirsa was 334.16 kgs. per hectare. According to the complainants as the average yield of village Panniwala Mota was less than threshold yield of block Odhan, so as per guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss to the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in village Panniwala Mota. Moreover, the ops have not led any evidence to prove that there was no damage to the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in village Panniwala Mota. So, the version of complainants that there was damage to their cotton crop in 65 kanals of land in Kharif, 2017 is to be believed and complainants being LRs of deceased Rai Singh are entitled to claim amount.
10. Now, the question arises that to what amount, the complainants are entitled for and which of the opposite parties is liable to pay the claim amount. The complainants claims an amount of Rs.2,34,750/- on account of damage of cotton crop in 65 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 deceased was owing 65 kanals of land which is now inherited by his above said LRs, therefore, his LRs are entitled to total lump sum claim amount of Rs.1,35,000/- for eight acres and one kanal of land.
11. The complainants have categorically stated that they are sowing cotton crop in Kharif season and their area is not fit for paddy crop. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 2 bank in their written version have stated that the crop which were told by complainant was insured. The ops no.1 and 2 in their written statement have not categorically stated that what crop was declared by complainant but Sh. Satnam Kamboj, Branch Manager of ops’ bank at the time of evidence in his affidavit has categorically stated that on the request of complainant, the answering ops got the Kharif 2017 crop i.e. paddy crop as declared by complainant insured with op no.3. In his affidavit, said Manager of ops no.1 and 2 bank has categorically stated that only paddy crop of complainant has been got insured. But however, ops no.1 and 2 have not placed on file any declaration of the complainant regarding sowing of any particular crop in particular season. The ops no.1 and 2 have also not placed on file loan record of complainants/ deceased Rai Singh and have failed to prove on record that at the time of availing loan facility, what crop to be sown was declared by them. 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 and cotton crop is being sown in Kharif season. So the bald statement of Manager of ops no.1 and 2 made for the first time only in his affidavit which is just an afterthought is not trustworthy and believable. So, it is proved on record that op no.1 bank at the time of insuring crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 with op no.3 due to mistake shown 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 LRs of deceased Rai Singh.
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.1,35,000/- to the complainants/ LRs of deceased Rai Singh in equal share 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.1,35,000/- 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 LRs of deceased 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.
