BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 529 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 11.09.2019.
Date of Decision : 30.10.2023.
Major Singh aged about 75 years son of Shri Balbir Singh son of Shri Sardar Singh, resident of village Bhagsar, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Canara Bank village Panniwala Mota Branch, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. ABW Towers, Unit No. 511-512, 5th Floor, M.G. Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurugram- 122001 through Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.N. Grover, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist and is owner in possession of land measuring 26 kanals being 11/20 share of land measuring 47 kanals comprised in Khewat No. 207 Khatuni No. 229 situated at village Bhagsar, Tehsil and District Sirsa. He has availed KCC facility from op no.1 bank on his said land through account no. 205010100. It is further averred that on 29.07.2017 premium amount of Rs.1725/- was debited from the account of complainant by op no.1 for insurance of his kharif crop of 2017 with op no.2 as per scheme of the Government of India namely Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It is further averred that complainant had sown cotton crop in kharif, 2017 which was damaged due to natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and complainant is entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre. That complainant approached the ops and requested them to pay the compensation for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2017 but none of the ops paid any amount to the complainant and as such it is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of ops. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, initially none appeared on behalf of op no.1 and as such op no.1 was proceeded against exparte. However, the said exparte order against the op no.1 was set aside by the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 20.06.2022 passed in RP No.34 of 2022. Op no.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections. It is submitted that insurance premium amount of Rs.1725/- deducted from the account of complainant was remitted by answering op to op no.2 insurance company as per above said scheme and as such insurance claim was to be paid by insurance company and answering op had nothing to do with the same. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 also appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per complaint loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Bhagsar, Tehsil and District Sirsa due to the reason mentioned in the loss assess report “Rains not lead to Inundation” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by banker of farmer and if any mistake is done by bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. Other preliminary objections regarding 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 quanification of loss, no privity of contract and non impleading of necessary parties are also taken. On merits, it is submitted that no intimation ever received regarding the loss of crop from the complainant as well as any other agencies. However, the claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss occurred due to Rains but the 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 further 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 this, complainant has approached this Commission by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C1, khasra girdawari Ex.C2, pass book/ statement of account Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, details of farmers provided by op no.2 Ex.C5 and action taken report on CM Window Ex.C6.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Ravi, Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/A and statement of account Ex.R1.
7. OP no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities and as such evidence of op no.2 was closed by order.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. The complainant is claiming insurance claim amount for the damage of his cotton crop of kharif, 2017 sown in 26 kanals of land situated in village Bhagsar, District Sirsa. There is no dispute of the fact that premium amount of Rs.1725/- was deducted from the account of complainant on 29.07.2017 by op no.1 bank for insurance of his crop of kharif, 2017 which fact is also proved from statement of account of complainant placed on file by complainant as Ex.C4 as well as Ex.R1 placed on file by op no.1 bank. Though, op no.1 has asserted that said premium amount was remitted to op no.2 insurance company for insurance of kharif crop of 2017 but however as per details of farmers Ex.C5 provided by op no.2 insurance company to the complainant, complainant was not insured with op no.2 insurance company. The op no.1 bank has also failed to prove on record through any other cogent and convincing evidence that said premium amount deducted from the account of complainant was remitted to op no.2 insurance company and his cotton crop of kharif, 2017 was got insured through op no.2. In this regard, op no.1 bank has also failed to produce any document regarding transfer of the premium amount to op no.2. The op no.1 bank has also not proved on record through any document/ entry that crop of complainant of kharif, 2017 was insured with op no.2. As such op no.1 bank is liable to pay claim amount to the complainant for the damage, if any to the cotton crop of complainant of kharif, 2017. The complainant in order to prove loss to his cotton crop of kharif, 2017 has placed on file letter/ report of Deputy Agriculture department, Sirsa during the course of arguments in which it is reported that the average yield of cotton crop of kharif, 2017 of village Bhagsar was 335.83 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of block Badaguda was 631.44 Kgs. per hectare and since the average yield of his village was less than from threshold yield of block as such it is proved on record that there was loss to the cotton crop of kharif, 2017 of complainant. The sum insured amount of cotton crop in 2017 was Rs.69,000/- per hectare. So as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.42,316/- for the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2017 in his 26 kanals of land which is equal to 1.31 hectares of land and op no.1 bank is only liable to pay the said amount to the complainant besides compensation for harassment. In this regard, the Clause 17.2 of the operational guidelines of PMFBY stipulates that in cases where farmers are denied crop insurance due to incorrect/ partial/ non-uploading of their details on Portal, concerned Banks/ Intermediaries shall be responsible for payment of claims (if any).
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 bank and direct op no.1 to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.42,316/- to the complainant 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 said amount of Rs.42,316/- from op no.1 bank alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op no.1 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.2 insurance company stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President
Dt. 30.10.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
