BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 522 of 2019
Date of Institution : 10.09.2019.
Date of Decision : 10.06.2022.
Rohtash Singh aged about 52 years son of Shri Sabal Singh, resident of village Randhawa, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Central Bank of India, Begu Road, Branch Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company, Janta Bhawan Road, New Grain Market, Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ABW Towers, Unit No. 511-512, 5th Floor, M.G. Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurugram- 122001 through its Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………….…MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA………. MEMBER
Present: Sh. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Rajesh Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist having land measuring 2.658 hectares (as detailed in para no.1) situated in village Randhawa, Tehsil and District Sirsa. He has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on his above agriculture land through account No. 3209563943. That as per scheme of Govt. of India i.e. Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, premium amount of Rs.3859.27 was deducted by op no.1 from his account on 31.07.2018 for insurance of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 and accordingly op no.1 got insured his cotton crop from ops no.2 and 3 under the collaboration scheme, but however, copy of policy was not supplied to him despite his request. It is further averred that crop of Kharif, 2018 in his village including crop of complainant was destroyed and as such complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per acre. That complainant approached the ops many times and requested to pay the claim for damages to his crops but ops have failed to indemnify his loss whereas some of the villagers have already received compensation. It is further averred that complainant inspected his claim through PMFBY portal and found that the officer of bank negligently mentioned the name of his village as Kutiana instead of village Randhawa. The complainant also made complaint on 7.6.2019 to CM Window, on 9.7.2019 made complaints to ops and on 18.07.2019 moved RTI application through online and also sent reminders on 23.7.2019 and 25.7.2019 in this regard but of no use and ultimately ops have refused to indemnify his loss. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that an amount of Rs.3859.27 has been debited on 31.07.2018 in the account of complainant as premium for insurance of crop of Kharif, 2018. Said amount has been transferred to op no.2 for insurance of his crop but nothing has been heard from op no.2 after receiving the premium, hence, it is presumed that op no.2 has accepted the premium. Therefore, op no.2 insurance company is liable to compensate the complainant regarding any loss caused to him. If crop was not insured by insurance company, then it was their duty to refund the amount of insurance premium. After acceptance of premium, the matter of claim etc. is between the insurance company and farmer. It is further submitted that insurance company has accepted the premium without any objection and has never refunded the same. Lead District Manager of Punjab National Bank Sirsa called the meetings of all Insurance Companies alongwith Director of Agriculture Department to sort the matter for payment of insurance claim and issued a letter to op no.2 for payment of insurance claim to the agriculturist on 1.7.2019/3.7.2019. The name of complainant is mentioned at Sr. No.119 in said letter. Remaining contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that complainant has impleaded op no.3 and crops of complainant must have been insured by op no.3 and op no.2 has been unnecessarily impleaded. 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 the Government, no survey no quantification of loss, no privity of contract, non impleading of necessary parties have also been taken. On merits, it is submitted that answering op had never received the premium for the insurance of crop in the land of complainant situated in village Randhawa and the same was not insured with answering op. The banker of complainant has uploaded the name of village Kutiana in place of Randhawa on the National Crop Insurance Portal wrongly and did not make any effort to rectify the mistake and to correct the name of village in the portal before the closure of the portal. After the closure of the portal, no correction can be made. No loss of crop in the area of Kutiana was reported or registered with any of the agency under PMFBY, so the answering op is not liable to pay any claim for loss of crop or any compensation to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.3 also filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Randhawa 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. As such complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground given in the loss assess report alone. It is further submitted that insurance company cannot be questioned for proposal related disputes. The role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done either by complainant or by bank of complainant. In the present complaint, complainant is claiming for cotton crop, but 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 farmer. If any mistake is done by bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount. It is further submitted that it is clarified that except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalized by government agencies on the basis of yield of crop and thereafter, claims were to be paid to bank of farmers. The insurance company is playing a role of implementing agency in the scheme in accordance with guidelines prescribed by Government. Further more, in localized claims, three perils are covered under the scheme i.e. Hailstorm, Landslide and Inundation affecting isolated farms in the notified area. For localized claims, there was a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. After intimation of claim, necessary survey of affected area had to be conducted by surveyor for decision of claim of farmers. 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/ Bank and farmers. But instead of filing complaint or grievance before DAC & FW department, the complainant has approached this Forum by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme and thus, present complaint cannot be adjudicated before this Forum. It is further submitted that complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of crop and thus, connected story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim. Merely allegation of claim intimation is not enough to establish that loss had actually occurred. Further, in absence of immediate intimation of claim, survey of damage field could not be conducted and therefore, it is almost impossible to determine quantification of loss. As per guidelines of scheme, immediate intimation was to be given within 48 hours but complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss of crop which reveals violation of terms and conditions of scheme. Other preliminary objections regarding 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 and involvement of complicated facts and law are also taken. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and above said pleas are also reiterated. It is submitted that claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss was 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. With these averments, prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. The complainant has tendered his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, copy of adhar card Ex.C1, copy of pass book Ex.C2, copy of application for insurance claim Ex.C3, detail of complainant alongwith portal ID Ex.C4, copy of email of Lead District Manager’s Office to Oriental Insurance Company regarding settlement of claim cases Ex.C5, copy of application moved on CM Window Ex.C6, copies of emails Ex.C7 and Ex.C8, copy of police details Ex.C9, copy of letter dated 26.8.2019 of Central Bank of India Ex.C10, copy of CM Window Action Taken Report Ex.C11, copy of grievance lodged by complainant Ex.C12, grievance status Ex.C13, delivery status Ex.C14, copy of application Ex.C15, copy of email Ex.C16 and copies of jamabandis for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C17 and Ex.C18.
7. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Ravi Kumar, Branch Manager & Principal Officer Ex.R1, copy of email of bank to Oriental Insurance Company Ex.R2 with ID numbers Ex.R3. Op no.2 tendered affidavit of Mrs. Raj Rani, Divisional Manager as Ex.RW1/A, relevant clauses of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R4 to Ex.R7 and copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R8.
8. Op no.3 did not lead any evidence.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
10. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. He has also placed on record copy of his pass book as Ex.C2, the perusal of which reveals that on 31.07.2018 premium amount of Rs.3859.27 was deducted by op no.1 bank for insuring the crop of Kharif, 2018 of complainant with insurance company as per scheme of Central Government namely Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. According to complainant his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 was damaged but as name of his village was wrongly entered on the insurance portal by op no.1 bank as village Kutiana instead of village Randhawa, he has not received any compensation from any of the opposite parties i.e. bank and insurance companies nos.2 and 3. From the documents placed on file by complainant i.e. email of Lead District Manager of op bank sent to Oriental Insurance Company Ex.C5 and other emails of complainant sent to various authorities, it is proved on record that name of village of complainant was wrongly entered on the insurance portal as village Kutiana instead of village Randhawa. But, however, complainant has not proved on record any damage to his crop of Kharif, 2018 in village Randhawa. He has not placed on record any report of agricultural department or any other agency regarding damage to his crop of Kharif, 2018 in village Randhawa. So, complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence to prove damage to his crop of Kharif, 2018 and as such he is not entitled to any claim from any of the ops.
11. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. 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: 10.06.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
