Date of Filing : 28.02.2019
Date of Disposal : 27.06.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA.,ML, PhD (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL., .....MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.COM., ICWA (inter), BL., .......MEMBER-II
CC. No.13/2019
THIS TUESDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JUNE 2023
1.Mr.A.Ganesan,
S/o.Arunachala Mudhaliar,
2.Mrs.G.Hemavathy,
W/o.Arunachalam,
3.Mrs.G.Sarojammal,
S/o.Govindhraj,
All residing at No.2/32, Melandai Street,
Chinnambedu Village and Post,
Ponneri Taluk,
Thiruvallur District 601 206. ……Complainants.
//Vs//
1.HDFC Bank Limited,
Rep. by its Chairman,
HDFC Bank House,
Senapati Bapat Marg.,
Lower Parel (West) Mumbai 400 013.
2.HDFC Bank Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Agricultural Department,
Swamy Complex, Old No.2/2, New No.44/2,
1st Floor, Bye Pass Road, Redhills, Chennai 600 052.
3.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Private Limited,
3rd and 4th Floor, Chottabhai Centre,
No.140, Nungampakkam High Road,
Chennai 600 034. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainants : Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s.T.Balasubramaniam, Advocate.
Counsel for the 3rd opposite party : Mrs.A.Lathamaheswari, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 13.06.2023 in the presence of Mr.A.R.Poovannan counsel for the complainant and M/s.T.Balasubramaniam counsel for the 1 & 2 opposite parties and Mrs.A.Lathamaheswari counsel for the 3rd oppostie party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in not processing the crop insurance claim of the complainant along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to process the insurance claim of the complainants and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainants and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
Being aggrieved by the act of opposite parties in not processing the insurance claim of the complainants the present complaint was filed.
It was the case of the complainants that they were absolute owners of lands measuring to an extent of acres 60.45 cents and the land had been mortgaged with opposite parties in the year 2016 in connection with availing overdraft facility. It was submitted that the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and requested for sanction of Rs.33,00,000/- as Agricultural loan under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India for cultivation of paddy in the said lands. At the time of sanctioning the agriculture loan the 2nd opposite party automatically debited a sum of Rs.19,740/- on 30.11.2016 towards crop insurance. Unfortunately in the year 2016, in Tamil Nadu, especially Chennai, Thiruvallur and Kancheepuram Districts were totally affected by the Vardhah cyclone storm and the complainants were also one of the victims. The complainants then approached the 2nd opposite party for getting insurance claim for the damages suffered by them on the strength of the above insurance policy but the 2nd opposite party did not care about the complainants’ insurance claim. Despite the complainants’ repeated request and demand the 2nd opposite party was deaf eared. As per the advice of the 2nd opposite party when the complainants contacted their Head Office they replied to contact the registered office and even when the complainants contacted the Registered Office they directed to contact local Branch Office. Despite repeated requests and demands they have not even come forward to inform as to the status of the complainants crop insurance claim. Hence the complainants issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 10.10.2018 but there was no response from them. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to process the insurance claim of the complainants and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainants and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties 1&2:-
The complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in liminie. In the course of normal banking business they are rendering various services to its customers and in consonance with banking law, it lends money to the eligible customer by way of Auto loan, Customer durable loan, Vehicle loan, Personal loan, Home loan, Business loan and Agricultural loan etc., on such terms and conditions as decided from time to time. The complainant approached the opposite parties with specific request for Agricultural loan and on their executing necessary documents as required in the normal practice and as adopted by other financial institutions Agricultural loan was sanctioned and as per the Government of India mandate the complainant joined group crop insurance scheme. Further the opposite parties filed a memo on 22.08.2019 seeking copy of the insurance policy from the complainant. Since even after the memo, the complainant has not given a copy of the insurance policy to enable the opposite parties to file the version. In such circumstances while reiterating that the complaint is not maintainable they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 3rd opposite party:-
The complaint was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of Consumer Protection Act. The complainants have not furnished any documents pertaining to receipt of premium. The complainants also not added proper and necessary party i.e. Director of Agricultural Department and Joint Director of agricultural department. The 3rd opposite party was unnecessary party in the complaint and thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On the side of complainants proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 was submitted. On the side of opposite parties 1 & 2 proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 was submitted. On the side of 3rd opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B5 to Ex.B7 was submitted.
Points for consideration:
Whether the act of opposite parties in not processing the crop insurance claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of her contentions;
Statement of Account of the complainant was marked as Ex.A1;
Crop insurance premium payment receipt dated 30.11.2017 was marked as Ex.A2;
Patta Nos.675, 913 in the name of 1st complainant dated 29.06.2016 was marked as Ex.A3;
Patta Nos.356,30 in the name of 2nd complainant dated 29.06.2016 was marked as Ex.A4;
Patta Nos.49,74 in the name of 2nd complainant dated 29.06.2016 was marked as Ex.A5;
Patta Nos.188,607 in the name of complainant’s vendor dated 07.08.2013 was marked as Ex.A6;
Legal notice issued by the complainant dated 10.10.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;
Postal tracking and notice received by the 1st opposite party was marked as Ex.A8;
Acknowledgement card by the 2nd opposite party was marked as Ex.A9;
On the side of opposite parties 1&2 following documents were filed in proof of their defence;
Power of attorney dated 18.11.2021 was marked as Ex.B1;
Copy of Praddhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana scheme was marked as Ex.B2;
MODT registered as document No.4895/2016 dated 25.11.2016 was marked as Ex.A3;
Letter sent to the insurer, M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company by the opposite party dated 26.10.2017 was marked as Ex.A4;
On the side of 3rd opposite party following documents were filed in proof of their defence;
Declaration form was marked as Ex.B5;
Copy of Praddhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana scheme was marked as Ex.B6;
Declaration form was marked as Ex.B7;
Heard both learned counsels appearing for the complainants and the opposite parties. It is the case of the complainant that he along with his wife and his mother in law owns lands within Thiruvallur District and had availed Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, (PMFBY) loan for Rs.33,00,000/- as agricultural loan for cultivation of paddy in the said lands. The 2nd opposite party automatically debited a sum of Rs.19,740/- on 30.11.2016 towards crop insurance. Unfortunately, when Thiruvallur and Kancheepuram District were affected by Vardhah Cyclone, the complainant’s crop got destroyed. But the 2nd opposite party did not care to take any steps to get the insurance claim for the complainant. As per the advice when contacted the registered office they asked the complainant to contact the Local Branch Office. Thus the complainant was driven from pillar to post by the opposite parties. Thus stating that the opposite parties failed to get the insurance claim for the complainant and had committed deficiency in service the counsel sought for the complaint to be allowed.
On the other hand, the opposite parties 1 & 2 argued that the Vardhah cyclone hit in 12.12.2016, the complainant did not approach by way of an application for insurance and no evidence was produced by the complainant with regard to the damage to the crops. Further, as per the loss assessment procedure the insured farmer must intimate immediately i.e. within 48 hours about the particulars of loss to the either insurance company or concerned Bank or local Agricultural Department Government/District Officials or through toll free number. On 13.11.2017 next insurance premium was also paid and hence there arise no question of crops affecting by Vardhah and prayed for the complaint to be dismissed.
The 3rd opposite party who was impleaded subsequently argued that the complainant did not follow the loss assessment procedure and no receipt for payment of premium was submitted by the complainant. According to Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana the Insurance Company obtains the register of village declaration from HDFC Bank and accordingly the list of villages eligible for loss sustained during the year 2016 to 2017 is only 34 villages. As per the declaration only one farmer has been registered for the said declaration No.130. Therefore, if the complainant has sustained any loss he has to submit the claim form before the District Collector and Tahsildar who would direct the nodal Bank subsequently to the insurance company. Thus stating that the complainant is not entitled for insurance claim they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On appreciation of entire pleadings and materials vide Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 the factum of availing insurance by the complainant with the opposite parties has been proved. Evidence for payment of premium towards Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, an amount of Rs.21,126/- dated 30.11.2017 and an amount Rs.19,740/- dated 30.11.2016 was also produced. Thus the complainant availing crop insurance under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana scheme with the third party insurer was successfully proved by the complainant. The possession of lands was also proved by the complainant by way of documents Ex.A3 to Ex.A7. The damage by vardhah cyclone was not disputed by the opposite parties. The only defence raised by the opposite parties including the insurance company/3rd opposite party is that the complainant had not approached them appropriately as per the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana scheme loss assessment procedure. It is seen that the insurance scheme availed by complainant is a Group Crop Insurance Scheme which fact was not denied by the opposite parties. When the 2nd opposite party Bank had acted as an agent for the availment of insurance for the complainant and when the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party for getting the crop insurance claim sanctioned, it is for the 2nd opposite party to take steps to see that the claim is honored by the 3rd opposite party/Insurer. However, the 2nd opposite party when contacted by the complainant did not provide required instructions to the complainant to approach the 3rd opposite party insurer to get the insured amount for the damaged crops. It is imminent that the damage to the crops was also not disputed. When the 2nd opposite party automatically debit the insurance premium from the complainant’s account as seen in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, a duty is cast upon the 2nd opposite party to assist the complainant to get the insurance claim and when failed to do so we are of the opinion that the 2nd opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Further, the 3rd opposite party having received the premium amount simply rejecting the claim stating that the insurance claim was not made within 48 hours without realizing the fact that no damage could be assessed within 48 hours and no claim could be made within such a short span had also jointly committed deficiency in service when the Bank and the insurance company jointly act together in procuring the Group Crop Insurance policies from the farmers who are mostly layman unaware of the procedures. It is their bounden duty on both the Bank who automatically debit the premium and the insurance company who receives the premium amount and offers the policies to see that the farmers are indemnified appropriately for the loss of crops sustained by natural calamities. In such facts and circumstances we are of the view that both opposite parties 2 and 3 had jointly committed deficiency in service towards the complainant in not advising him properly to see that the insurance claim for the damaged crops was paid to him. Thus we answer the point accordingly holding that the opposite parties 2 & 3 had committed deficiency in service in not processing the crop insurance claim of the complainants and making him to suffer monetary loss and mental agony and hardship.
Point No.2:-
With regard to the relief, as the complainant had proved that he was in possession of large extent of lands this commission of the view that the damage to the crops would be also on a higher end. Hence we award a compensation for Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by both opposite parties 2 & 3 which would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances and also direct the 3rd opposite party to process the insurance claim of the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also award Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed against the 1st opposite party and partly allowed directing
a) 3rd opposite party to process the insurance claim of the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) 2nd and 3rd opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) 2nd and 3rd opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27th day of June 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 .............. Statement of Account of the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A2 30.11.2017 Crop insurance premum payment receipt. Xerox
Ex.A3 29.06.2016 Patta Nos.675,913 in the name of 1st complainant. Xerox
Ex.A4 29.06.2016 Patta Nos.356, 30 in the name of 2nd complainant. Xerox
Ex.A5 29.06.2016 Patta Nos.49,74 in the name of 2nd complainant. Xerox
Ex.A6 07.08.2013 Patta No.s188,607 in the name of complainant’s vendor. Xerox
Ex.A7 10.10.2018 Legal notice issued by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A8 ................ Postaling tracting and notice received by the 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A9 ............... Acknowledgement card by the 2nd opposite party. Xerox
List of document filed by the opposite parties 1 & 2:-
Ex.B1 18.11.2021 Power of attorney. Xerox
Ex.B2 ................ Copy of Praddhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana scheme. Xerox
Ex.B3 25.11.2016 MODT registered as document No.4895/2016. Xerox
Ex.B4 26.10.2017 Letter sent to the insurer, M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company by the opposite party. Xerox
List of documents filed by the 3rd oppostie party:-
Ex.B5 .............. Declaration form. Xerox
Ex.B6 ............. Copy of Praddhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana scheme. Xerox
Ex.B7 ............... Declaration form Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
