BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 356 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 11.07.2019
Date of Decision : 24.02.2022.
Sukhdev Singh aged about 43 years son of Shri Jagraj Singh, resident of village Sadewala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Central Bank of India, Branch at 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 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….MEMBER
SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA……………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. K.R. Taak, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist having land measuring about 51 Kanals 4 marlas situated in village Sadewala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. He has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on his above agriculture land through account No. 2080085271. That as per scheme of Govt. of India i.e. Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, premium amount of Rs.3486.71 was deducted by op no.1 from his account on 1.8.2017 and was credited to op no.2 for insurance of his crop of Kharif, 2017, but however, copy of policy was not supplied to him despite his request. The crop of Kharif, 2017 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. Hence, this complaint.
2. Ops were served. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op deducted premium which was paid to op no.2 being insurance company and after acceptance of premium, the matter of claim etc. is between insurance company and the farmer. It is further submitted that complainant has proposed in his loan application that he will sow the crop of paddy as Kharif crop. He has availed financial assistance i.e. KCC limit as per paddy crop and op bank has provided same on the viability of paddy crop. Hence, as per instruction of complainant, answering op has deducted amount from his account for the payment of insurance premium under PMFBY and paid the same to op no.2 for insurance of crop of paddy. It is also submitted that op bank has got insured proposed crop from op no.2 which is liable to compensate the complainant for damage of insured crop. If the complainant has changed the crop in Kharif, 2017, then it was his duty to inform the answering op so it could have been able to insure his said crop. It is further submitted that as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department Notification dated 30.3.2018, the Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cut off date and in case of any correction must report to the State Govt., failing which no objection by the insurance company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the insurance company to pay the claim.” It was the duty of op no.2 to visit the spot and insure the crop. If crop of paddy was not available on the spot and they have not insured the crop, then it was duty of op no.2 to refund the premium of insurance and if op no.2 has accepted the same, then it will be presumed that crop of complainant has been insured, hence op no.2 is liable for any loss to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
3. Op no.2 filed separate written version raising certain preliminary objections that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Sadewala, 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 insurance policy. As such complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground given in the loss assess report alone. The role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with scheme of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done either by complainant himself or bank of complainant. In the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for cotton crop of village Sadewala, but the alleged loss to the crop was not covered under the reason Inundation and Hailstorm. Other preliminary objections qua maintainability, 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 and mis joinder of parties have also been taken. On merits, it is submitted that no intimation was ever received regarding loss of crop from 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 and baseless story just to grab the compensation. It is not an individual insurance scheme like other insurance schemes 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 Commission by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme and thus, present complaint cannot be adjudicated before this Commission. All other remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bank pass book Ex.C1, copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C2, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C3, report of Assistant Statistical Officer, office of Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Sirsa Ex.C4, copy of jamabandi Ex.C5 and copy of pass book of his brother Jagtar Singh Ex.C6.
5. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Bhaskar, Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1, copy of evaluation form short term crop loan Ex.R2, copy of pre sanction report Ex.R3, copy of sanction letter Ex.R4, certificate regarding deduction of premium Ex.R5, copy of statement of account Ex.R6.
6. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing ample opportunities.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. Learned counsel for complainant contended that in Kharif, 2017 complainant had sown cotton crop over his share of land measuring 51 Kanals 4 Marlas and the crop was insured under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. As per the insurance scheme, a collaboration between the banks and insurance companies was done to insure the crops of the farmers who have availed KCC facility from the bank. As such premium amount of Rs.3486.71 was deducted from bank account of complainant bearing No.2080085271 by op no.1 bank which was credited in the account of OP no.2 being insurer of the crop. Unfortunately the crop of kharif, 2017 was damaged on account of natural calamities as per report of agricultural department and the yield was very low than the average yield, but despite the insurance, the ops had not indemnified loss caused to the farmer/ complainant and thus he has filed present complaint seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.3,20,000/- on account of damage to the crop, Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, Rs.10,000/- as penalty for deficiency in services and unfair trade practice and Rs.15,000/- as litigation charges against the ops and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
9. Learned counsel for op no.1 bank contended that amount has been credited in the account of op no.2 under the insurance policy of Central Government launched under PMFBY and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of op no.1. Now the matter is between complainant and insurance company op no.2 which has not paid compensation. Counsel for op no.1 further contended that insurance company has to verify data of the insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cut off date and in case of any correction must report to the State Govt. failing which no objection by the insurance company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the insurance company to pay the claim. He has further contended that complainant applied loan for crop of paddy as Kharif crop in his loan application and for financial assistance in the shape of KCC limit. The op no.1 has provided financial assistance to him on the viability of paddy crop and as per instruction of complainant, the bank has deducted amount from account of complainant for payment of insurance premium under scheme and paid the same to op no.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint against op no.1 bank.
10. Learned counsel for insurance company op no.2 contended that loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Sadewala, Tehsil and District Sirsa due to rain as mentioned in the loss assess report and rains not leads to Inundation and not covered under terms and conditions of insurance policy. He further contended that insurance company is only to pay the claim in accordance with scheme of PMFBY and insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake either done by complainant himself or bank of complainant.
11. Secondly, counsel for op no.2 vehemently contended that in the present complaint, complainant is claiming for loss of cotton crop of village Sadewala but alleged loss to the crop was not covered under the reason Inundation and Hailstorm. The insurance was done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of the farmer and if any mistake committed by bank, insurance company is not liable for claim amount. However, he admitted that insurance was compulsory for the farmers who had taken the benefit of KCC from the bank under the scheme of PMFBY and complainant failed to approach DAC & FW department for any grievance as 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 Commission by violating standard terms and conditions of the scheme and contended that complaint may kindly be dismissed.
12. From the perusal of evidence led by complainant as well as op no.1 bank, the contention raised by counsel for complainant are sustainable on record whereas contention of counsel for op no.2 are not sustainable on record.
13. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated and deposed all the facts of his complaint. He has also placed on file copy of his bank pass book Ex.C1, the perusal of which shows that on 1.8.2017 premium amount of Rs.3486.71 was deducted from his account for insurance of Kharif crop of 2017. Ex.C2 is copy of jamabandi of the land of complainant for the year 2016-2017, Ex.C3 is Khasra Girdawari in which crop of cotton has been shown by the revenue department at the time of girdawari of the land of the complainant. Ex.C4 is the report of agricultural department regarding yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 wherein it has been reported that average yield of village Sadewala was 81.30 Kg. per hectare. Ex.C5 is jamabandi for the land of complainant. The complainant has also placed on record copy of bank pass book of his brother Jagtar Singh son of Sh. Jagraj Singh as Ex.C6, the perusal of which shows that his brother Jagtar Singh who is also having same land of his share to that of complainant has been indemnified for the loss of crop of Kharif, 2017 to the tune of Rs.1,13,170.39 by the insurance company, meaning thereby that now at this stage, the insurance company is estopped by its own act and conduct from taking the plea that insurance company is not liable to indemnify the present complainant since both brothers i.e. complainant and said Jagtar Singh are residing in same village, are agriculturists by profession and are sowing same crop over the land. More so, the insurance company after receiving the premium within two months of the cut off date has to verify about the farmer, crop sown by farmer and his KYC. Since op no.2 insurance company has accepted premium and never refunded the premium to the complainant through his bank or by any other mode, now insurance company is totally estopped by its own act and conduct from taking the plea that insurance company is not liable to indemnify the complainant.
14. Further more, as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department Notification No. 948-Agri-II (I)-2018/4332 dated 30.3.2018, the Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cut off date and in case of any correction must report to the State Govt., failing which no objection by the insurance company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the insurance company to pay the claim. The agricultural department has assessed loss as per their report Ex.C4 vide which yield in village Sardarewala was 81.30 Kg. per hectare, certainly it was very low than average yield of cotton crop. Since one of the co-sharer Jagtar Singh who is having same share to that of complainant has been compensated by the op no.2 for loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017, the complainant is also entitled for compensation on account of loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 at par with his co-sharer who is also cultivating equal share of land. Although, the op no.1 bank has asserted that complainant proposed in his loan application that he will sow crop of paddy in Kharif season and op no.1 bank has also tendered affidavit of Sh. Bhaskar Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1 which is also repetition of their written statement and op bank has also placed on record Ex.R2 evaluation form regarding short term crop loan but it is a printed form of bank though signed by complainant and crop has been written as paddy but complainant has established on record through Khasra girdawari of the land that he is sowing cotton crop in Kharif season and more so as already mentioned, insurance company op no.2 could report this objection to the State within two months of cut off date of insurance and at this stage insurance company cannot take the plea that crop sown by complainant was not insured and no loss has been caused due to Inundation. Therefore, objections and arguments put forth by counsel for op no.2 are not sustainable on record. There was deficiency in services from the side of op no.2 for not indemnifying the loss to the complainant. However, op no.1 bank is not liable for anything since they have credited the premium amount in the account of op no.2 after deducting from the account of complainant and nothing has been left to be performed by op no.1 bank and to cause any negligence or deficiency in service and therefore, op no.1 bank is exonerated from any liability.
15. Keeping in view of reasons and discussions herein above, present complaint is allowed qua op no.2 and complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,13,170.39 ( in round figure Rs.1,13,170/-) i.e. equal amount as has been paid to his brother Jagtar Singh who is also having same share of land as that of complainant. Therefore, we direct the insurance company op no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,13,170/- to the complainant alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 11.7.2019 till actual realization of total amount. Apart from this compensation for loss of crop, complainant is also entitled to composite compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- from op no.2 for harassment and litigation expenses. The op no.2 is liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against op no.2. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 24.02.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
Typed by : Jagdish Kumar,
Stenographer
