BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 402 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 26.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 26.08.2022.
Sohan Lal (aged about 51 years) son of Sh. Bahadur Ram sonof Sh. Jee Ram, resident 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. M.R. Dhainwal, 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 and is having agricultural land ( as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) situated in village Panniwala Mota, Tehsil and District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 and has obtained KCC facility from op no.1. The op no.1 bank has deducted premium amount of Rs.2553/- on 31.7.2017 from account of complainant bearing No. 2050841000278 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 his 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.1,90,000/- approximately on account of damages to his insured crop and he is entitled for the same. 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 to him 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. The other co-sharers who are the brothers of complainant and all other farmers have already received compensation on account of damages caused to the insured crops from op no.3. 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.2553/- 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 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. Complainant has tendered his affidavit 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, pass book Ex.C5, adhar card Ex.C6, report of Agriculture department Ex.C7, khasra girdawari Ex.C8, jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C9, Ex.C10, pass book of Jagdish Ex.C11, statement of account of Jagdish Ex.C12, pass book of Chhotu Ram Ex.C13 and statement of account of Chhotu Ram Ex.C14.
6. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Satnam Kamboj, Branch Manager and Principal Officer as Ex.R1 and copy of statement of account of Sohan Lal complainant Ex.R2.
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 and his brothers who are also co-sharers in the land have already received claim amount for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. In order to prove his case, the complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex. CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also placed on file copy of his statement of account 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 31.7.2017, premium amount of Rs.2553/- was deducted from the account of complainant by bank for insuring the crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017. Further, complainant in order to prove damage to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 has also furnished copies of statements of accounts of his brothers namely Jagdish Gopal and Chhotu Ram as Ex.C11 to Ex.C14, the perusal of which reveals that on 12.11.2018 an amount of Rs.60,915/- each was transferred to the accounts of said Jagdish Gopal and Chhotu Ram brothers of complainant on account of claim amount for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. The complainant has also placed on file report of Agriculture Department, Sirsa Ex.C7 according to which the average yield of crop of Kharif, 2017 in village Panniwala Mota, District Sirsa was 334.16 kgs. per hectare and since it is proved on record that brothers of complainant who are co-sharers with complainant and having land near the land of complainant have already received claim amount for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017, there was certainly also damage to the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017. It is also proved on record that complainant is sowing cotton crop in Kharif season and not paddy crop which fact is proved on record from copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C8 and that there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 and complainant was also entitled to the amount of Rs.60,915/- as claim amount for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 as complainant is co-sharer with his brothers Jagdish and Chhotu Ram and is having same land as that of his above said brothers.
10. Now, the question arises that which of the opposite parties is liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.60,915/- to the complainant?. The complainant has averred that he has been sowing only cotton crop in Kharif season and the area in which land of complainant is not fit for sowing paddy crop. The complainant has also averred that op no.1 disclosed that mistakenly the crop of complainant has wrongly been mentioned as paddy crop instead of cotton crop in the proposal form sent to op no.3 by op no.1 and they assured that said mistake would be got rectified by them. The defence plea of ops no.1 and 2 is that they have got the crops of complainant insured with op no.3 which was told by complainant. The premium amount of Rs.2553/- was transferred to the account of op no.3 on account of insurance premium for the insurance of crops of complainant as declared by him. 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 at the time of insurance, the complainant declared that paddy crop has been sown by him in his field and accordingly the paddy crop of complainant has been got insured. However, from the record produced on record by complainant, it is duly proved on record that area where the agricultural land of complainant is situated is not fit for sowing paddy crop and only 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. Further more, complainant has also placed on file loan document obtained from op no.1 bank under RTI, the perusal of which reveals that complainant has declared that he will sow cotton crop in Kharif season. So, it is proved on record that complainant is sowing cotton crop in Kharif season and same was declared to op no.1 bank but ops no.1 and 2 in order to avoid their liability for said mistake in their affidavit have wrongly stated that at the time of insurance, complainant declared that he has sown paddy crop. Since, the mistake on the part of ops no.1 and 2 bank is apparent in this case but they have tried to mislead the facts, we are of the considered view that only ops no.1 and 2 bank are liable to pay the above said amount to the complainant and insurance company op no.3 is not liable to pay the same and as such op no.3 is hereby exonerated. Though, complainant has claimed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- but however, said claim of complainant is excessive and as mentioned above he is entitled to the amount of Rs.60,915/- as received by his other co-sharers brothers.
11. 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.60,915/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 26.7.2019 till actual payment within a period of 45 day from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We further direct the ops no.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said period. In case the ops no.1 and 2 fail to comply with the order within above said stipulated period, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against ops no.1 and 2. 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: 26.08.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
