BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 192 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 01.09.2020.
Date of Decision : 19.10.2023.
Parmeshwari Devi now deceased through her legal heir Sandeep Sahu son of Shri Mahender Partap son of Shri Inderaj resident of village Fatehpuria, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Central Bank of India, Rania Branch, Rania Tehsil Rania, 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 its Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.N. Grover, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER:-
Initially the original complainant Smt. Parmeshwari Devi has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops) but after death of complainant Smt. Parmeshwari Devi, her grandson Sandeep Sahu (son of her daughter) has been impleaded as her legal representative.
2. The case of original complainant Smt. Parmeshwari Devi is that she is an agriculturist and is owner in possession of land measuring 39 kanals 19 marlas comprised in khewat no. 100 khatuni no. 469 situated in village Fatehpuria, District Sirsa as per jamaandi for the year 2017-18 and has availed KCC facility from op no.1 bank on her above said land through account no. 3267108782. That complainant had sown paddy crop in her five acres of land during kharif, 2019 and also deposited the proposal application for insurance of her aforesaid crop and an amount of Rs.1856.78 was deducted from the account of complainant for insurance of her crop of kharif, 2019 and thereafter on 13.12.2019 an amount of Rs.1912/- was deducted for insurance of her crop of rabi, 2019. It is further averred that in the village the crop of kharif, 2019 including crop of complainant was destroyed on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and she came to know that insurance company has awarded Rs.12,000/- per acre to the farmers. The complainant also contacted bank authorities in this regard but she was surprised to know that bank authorities negligently insured the cotton crop of complainant and on account of same the compensation amount was refused to her. It is further averred that thereafter on 18.05.2020 son in law of complainant Mahender Partap also moved an application to the bank authorities in this regard but no action has been taken and it appears that they have deliberately done so for causing loss to the complainant. That complainant also moved RTI applications through her counsel and ultimately the ops wrongly stated that no proposal form was submitted by complainant with the bank for the crop of kharif, 2019 and such act and conduct on the part of bank clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and they have caused harassment to the complainant. That complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops on 27.05.2020 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant informed the answering op to insure her crop of cotton for kharif, 2019 and same was got insured from op no.2 and op no.2 has not raised any objection as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018 and if the complainant has suffered any loss, then insurance company is liable to compensate her. 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 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complaint is filed for the loss of crop in Kharif 2019 season wherein ICICI Lombard i.e. op no.2 was not the implementing agency. That as per complaint, loss of kharif crop has been effected in village Fatehpuria, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa due to the reason mentioned in the loss assess report “Natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground given in the loss assess report. It is further submitted that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by banker of farmers and insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done either by complainant or by bank of complainant. Other preliminary objections regarding maintainability, non intimation, non submission of proof of loss or weather report, limited coverage as per scheme, yield basis claims are decided by Govt., no survey no quantification of loss, privity of contract and non impleading of necessary parties are also taken. On merits also, the contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. In evidence, Sandeep Sahu (now complainant) LR of deceased Smt. Parmeshwari original complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents i.e. jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C2, khasra girdawari for the year 2019-2020 Ex.C3, statement of account Ex.C4, application moved under RTI Act as well as letter of Public Information Officer & Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa with documents Ex.C5, application moved by Mahender Partap Ex.C6, legal notice Ex.C7, postal receipt Ex.C8 and applications under RTI Act, postal receipts and reply Ex.C9 to Ex.C14, death certificate of Smt. Parmeshwari Ex.C15, aadhar card of Sandeep Sahu Ex.C16 and will executed by Smt. Parmeshwari in favour of Sandeep Sahu son of Mahender Partap ( i.e. son of her daughter) Ex.C17.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Rahul Kumar, Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1 and copies of documents i.e. statement of account Ex.R2 and loan application form Ex.R3.
7. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities and 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. At the very outset we would like to mention that initially present complaint was filed by original complainant Smt. Parmeshwari Devi seeking insurance claim amount for the loss of her paddy crop of kharif, 2019 in her 39 kanals 19 marlas of land situated in village Fatehpuria, District Sirsa and after her death the son of her daughter Sandeep Sahu on the basis of will executed by Smt. Parmeshwari in his favour (copy Ex.C17) has been impleaded as her legal representative. Said Sandeep Sahu (now complainant) in order to prove ownership of her deceased maternal grandmother Smt. Parmeshwari has placed on file copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C2 which proves the fact that she was having 39 kanals 19 marlas of agricultural land in village Fatehpuria and from khasra girdawari for the year 2019-2020, it is evident that they had sown crop of paddy in kharif, 2019. The deceased Smt., Parmeshwari while availing crop loan facility from op no.1 bank had also declared that she will sow paddy crop in her agricultural land in kharif season which fact is evident from the copy of loan application form placed on file by op no.1 bank itself as Ex.R3. It is also proved fact on record that on 11.07.2019 premium amount of Rs.1856.78 was deducted by op no.1 bank for insuring the kharif crop of 2019 of complainant. The original complainant has alleged that she did not receive the insurance claim for the damage of her paddy crop of kharif, 2019 as bank authorities negligently insured the cotton crop of complainant. From the record available on file, it is clearly evident that complainant was sowing paddy crop in her land and she has also availed loan for paddy crop and therefore, the bank Manager in his affidavit Ex.R1 has wrongly stated that she never informed regarding change of crop to the op bank because complainant has not changed the crop pattern and it appears that op no.1 bank at its own got insured the cotton crop instead of paddy crop and has not denied the said fact that cotton crop of complainant was got insured and has simply asserted that insurance company has not raised any objection in this regard. So, the op no.1 bank is at fault in this regard. From the copy of letter/ report of Statistical Assistant office of DDA, Sirsa (at page no.3 of Ex.C5), it is evident that average yield of paddy crop of kharif, 2019 in village Fatehpuria was 1993.40 Kgs. per hectare and threshold yield of paddy crop of block Rania was 3373.38 Kgs. per hectare. So, it is proved on record that as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, there was loss of paddy crop in village Fatehpuria in Kharif, 2019 and as such there was also loss to the paddy crop of complainant (now deceased represented through her LR). The sum insured amount of paddy crop in 2019 was Rs.77,800/- as is evident from Haryana Govt. notification dated 24.05.2019. Though as per formula given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY, the claim amount comes to Rs.63,016/- for loss of paddy crop in 39 kanals 19 marlas of land which is equal to 1.98 hectare but complainant has claimed that other farmers have been given claim amount at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per acre and thus has sought claim amount of Rs.60,000/- for 39 kanals 19 marlas of land. Since other farmers have been given claim amount at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per acre, so in this case present complainant/ LR of deceased Parmeshwari is also entitled to claim amount of Rs.60,000/- for the loss of paddy crop of kharif, 2019. 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) and as such op no.1 bank only is liable to pay the above said amount to said Sandeep Sahu as op no.1 bank is at fault in this case.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 bank and direct the opposite party no.1 bank to pay the above said claim amount of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant Sandeep Sahu (LR of original complainant) alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 01.09.2020 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the op no.1 bank 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 is 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. 19.10.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
