BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 613 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 14.10.2019.
Date of Decision : 31.01.2023.
Balbir Singh aged 75 years son of Shri Gurdev Singh, resident of village Mallewala, Tehsil & District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Haryana Gramin Bank through its Manager Branch at Neza Della Khurd, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
2. Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh- 160002.
3. Agriculture Officer, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.
...…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. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant 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 complainant has alleged that he is an agriculturist having his agricultural land measuring 69 Kanals 10 Marlas ( as detailed in para no.2 of the complainant) situated in village Mallewala, Tehsil and District Sirsa and his whole of family depends on the income from the seasonal crop. The complainant is having his Kisan Credit Card account number 8154880008622 maintained with op no.1 and had availed loan facility under Kisan Credit Card. It is further averred that as per scheme Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna of Central Govt. of India, the op no.1 bank in order to get his crop of Kharif, 2017 insured with insurance company deducted premium amount from his above said account but an entry regarding re-deposit or refund of the amount in his account was wrongly made and ops have done this just as against the double deduction of the premium. It is further averred that whole of the Narma crop of Kharif, 2017 sown by complainant was destroyed/ damaged due to attack of rainy flood/ natural calamity and as such complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre including the amount spent on sowing of the crop. That complainant approached all the ops in this regard and requested them to pay the insurance claim amount for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 but none of ops redressed his grievance despite his visits and requests. The ops even failed to repudiate the claim of the complainant. That op no.3 has also failed to discharge its duty by making assessment of the crop damage loss. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding non serving of prior notice, estoppal, maintainability, cause of action, concealment of true and material facts, jurisdiction, complaint is hopelessly time barred, non joinder of necessary parties and that answering op has not charged any penny on account of any insurance for itself from the complainant, hence the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation from answering op. On merits, it is submitted that complainant himself has got insured his paddy crop sown in kharif season and wheat crop sown in Rabi season through answering op. Accordingly, the amount of premium has been debited to his loan account and has been credited to op no.2 as per norms. At the time of insurance, the complainant was very much present in the Bank and authorized/ instructed the answering op for doing insurance of his crops as mentioned in the application which is duly signed by him. It is further submitted that accordingly the answering op has applied to op no.2 for insurance of the crops as told by the complainant which crops are also mentioned in the application form. On the instructions of complainant, the answering op has debited the amount of premium from the account of complainant and has sent the same to op no.2 for insurance of the crops of complainant. It is incorrect that cotton crop of complainant was got insured. It is further submitted that complainant himself has sown Narma crop in his field, which was not insured, hence, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation on account of any loss. The complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 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 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. Op no.3 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections as that of op no.2. It is submitted that only crop cutting experience report or survey report of loss of crop may be prepared by the answering op and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of the answering op in this regard. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.
7. On the other hand, op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R1 and copy of Haryana Govt. Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department notification dated 13.06.2017 Ex.R2, copy of village wise tabulation sheet Ex.R3.
8. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Mukesh Bhadu, Manager as Ex.R4, KCC calculation Ex.R5 and statement of account Ex.R6.
9. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has also placed on file letter/ report of Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa dated 21.10.2022 to prove the damage to the cotton crop in village Mallewala. The complainant has claimed insurance claim amount for the damage of his insured crop of Kharif, 2017. According to complainant as he had sown cotton crop in his agricultural land which was duly got insured by op no.1 bank with insurance company by paying requisite premium amount and as insured crop was damaged, therefore, he is entitled to insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop. However, according to op no.1 bank complainant himself got his paddy crop sown in kharif insured through op no.1. In this regard, the op no.1 bank has also stated that complainant was very much present in the bank and instructed the op no.1 bank for doing insurance of his crops as mentioned in the application which is duly signed by him. The op no.1 bank has also placed on file a document regarding KCC calculation Ex.R5 in which complainant at the time of availing loan facility from op no.1 bank declared that he will sow paddy crop in Kharif season and accordingly loan was granted to him by the bank at the viability of paddy crop also. Said document i.e. loan application form Ex.R5 is duly signed by complainant himself. Thereafter, if complainant has changed the crop of cotton from paddy crop, then he should have informed the op no.1 bank so that his cotton crop could be insured. Since cotton crop of complainant was not got insured by op no.1 bank nor any intimation qua change of pattern of crop was ever given by complainant to op no.1 bank, it appears that complainant is not entitled for loss of cotton crop which was not duly insured with insurance company and for which premium was not deducted by op bank. Moreover, there is categorical stand of op no.1 bank that complainant himself directed the op no.1 bank to get insured his crop i.e. paddy crop as mentioned in the loan application and complainant has not stated even a single word even in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A that he did not instruct the op no.1 bank for insuring his paddy crop with the insurance company op no.2. Since the loan amount was taken by complainant for paddy crop and no intimation regarding change of crop by him has been given to the op no.1 bank, therefore, complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct.
12. 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: 31.01.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
