BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 546 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 16.09.2019
Date of Decision : 29.05.2023.
- Kailash aged about 40 years son of Shri Harbans,
- Banti aged about 35 years son of Shri Harbans, both residents of village Jogiwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa. ……Complainants.
Versus.
1. The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. Bhattu Kalan, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. ABW Towers, Unit No. 511-512, 5th Floor, M. G. Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurugram- 122001 through authorized person.
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered Office 19 Reliance Centre, Walchand, Hira Chand Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai- 400001 through authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………….MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………. MEMBER
Present: Sh. K.R. Pilania, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Opposite party no.3 already given up.
ORDER
The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainants is that they are agriculturists having agricultural land situated in village Jogiwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa. They are also having their KCC account in the bank of op no.1 bearing account no. 50200010745042. That during the season of Kharif, 2017 complainants sown cotton crop in their land. It is further averred that on 24.07.2017 complainants intimated the op no.1 bank that they have sown cotton crop and requested to insure cotton crop under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and therefore on 31.07.2018 premium amount of Rs.5982.90 was deducted by op no.1 from the account of complainants and cotton crop of complainants and their father has been insured under the said scheme. It is further averred that crop of number of farmers of village Jogiwala including complainants was damaged on account of natural calamities, pests/ disease and draught and most of the farmers have already received amount of compensation from the Government/ insurance companies but complainants did not receive any amount of compensation from any of ops. That complainants approached the ops and requested them to pay the amount of compensation but firstly the ops kept on avoiding the requests of complainants on one false pretext or the other and ultimately the ops declined from compensating them saying that cotton crop has not been insured under the scheme rather paddy crop has been insured whereas complainants never sown paddy crop in their land. It is further averred that this act on the part of ops is totally unlawful and is of negligence as they insured paddy crop of complainants instead of cotton crop. The ops also never paid any amount qua the damage of paddy crop and have caused unnecessary harassment to the complainants. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops no.1 and 2 appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainants have applied to the answering op for providing them financial assistance of Rs.13,00,000/- as KCC limit vide application dated 16.02.2015. They had proposed in their application that they will sow crop of paddy in kharif. If they have changed the crop, then it was their duty to inform the ops. Accordingly answering op has paid the premium to the insurance company for the insurance of proposed crop. It is further submitted that insurance company has not raised any objection as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018 and accepted the premium for insurance of crop of complainants. Hence, it is presumed that crops of complainants have been fully insured and insurance company is liable to compensate the complainants regarding any loss caused to them. If insurance company has not insured the crops of complainants, then it was their duty to refund the amount of insurance premium and after acceptance of premium, the matter of claim etc. is between the insurance company and the farmers. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 did not file any written statement despite availing opportunities and as such defence of op no.2 was struck off vide order dated 06.02.2020.
5. Op no.3 was given up by learned counsel for complainant.
6. The complainants in evidence have tendered affidavit of Kailash complainant as Ex. C1 and also tendered documents i.e. statement of accounts of Dharam Pal, Ravinder and Sandeep Ex.C2 to Ex.C5, statement of account of complainants as Ex.C6. report/ letter of Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa Ex.C7, jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C8, jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C9.
7. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1, application for retail agriculture loan Ex.R2 and statement of account Ex.R3.
8. In additional evidence, complainants have also examined Sh. Parveen Kumar, Relationship Manager HDFC Bank, Branch Adampur and have placed on record application Ex.C9.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
10. From the copy of statement of account placed on file by complainants as Ex.C6, it is evident that on 31.07.2018, premium amount of Rs.5982.90 was deducted from the account of complainants for insurance of their paddy crop of kharif, 2018. However, the complainants have claimed insurance claim amount for the damage to their cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 whereas op no.1 bank has specifically asserted that complainants had proposed in their loan application that they will sow paddy crop in kharif season and op no.1 bank debited the premium as per viability of paddy crop which was paid to the insurance company. The op no.1 bank has further asserted that if they have changed the crop, then it was their duty to inform the op bank and since complainants have proposed their crop for kharif as paddy accordingly op no.1 has paid the premium to the insurance company for insurance of proposed crop i.e. paddy and insurance company also has not raised any objection and accepted the premium for insurance of crop of complainants. The op no.1 in this regard has also placed on file application for retail agriculture loan Ex.R2 in which complainants have proposed that they will sow paddy crop in kharif season and therefore at the viability of paddy crop loan amount was sanctioned and paid to the complainants.
11. The complainants in order to prove that they duly informed the op no.1 bank regarding change of crop have also placed on file application dated 24.07.2017 as Ex.C9 and have also examined Sh. Parveen Kumar, Relationship Manager, HDFC Bank Branch Adampur. He has stated that on 24.01.2017 he was posted at Bhattu Branch and Kailash son of Harbans came at the premises of HDFC Bank Bhattu and he has received the application of complainant for change of crop which is already Ex.C9 which bears his signatures. However, in his cross-examination, said Parveen Kumar Relationship Manager has stated that he is a field staff and crop to be changed by the bank operation staff on fulfilling of proper process of the bank. The complainant has availed financial assistance/ KCC limits for paddy crop and he advised to complainant to visit the bank and deposit the excess amount to the bank to reduce the limit for cotton crop on the prevailing rate for KCC limit of cotton crop. He has further admitted that complainant has never visited to the bank for getting reduced his limit for cotton crop nor get uploaded this letter in the bank. Since complainants failed to fulfill the process of the bank by visiting the bank and never visited the bank for completing formalities i.e. to deposit the excess amount to the bank to reduce the limit for cotton crop on the prevailing rate for KCC limit of cotton crop and did not make aware the bank about sowing of cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 whereas loan was availed by complainants for paddy and wheat crop, therefore, bank cannot be held liable for any deficiency of services. Although complainant Kailash met with field staff but complainants did not comply the instructions of said Parveen Kumar field staff and have not visited the bank for change of their crop in their loan record, therefore, complainants are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the complaint since portal entry was made on the basis of loan file i.e. for paddy crop by the bank. The complainants have availed financial assistance of paddy crop which is more than cotton crop and as such complainants did not go to the bank even on the asking of said Sh. Parveen Kumar for reducing the limit of loan and as such complainants are not entitled to any insurance claim for the damage of their cotton crop for which no premium was debited from their account and which was not insured with the insurance company.
12. In view of our 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: 29.05.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
