BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 395 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 24.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 24.11.2022.
Ravinder aged about 45 years son of Shri Bhoora Ram, resident of village Ban Sudhar, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank Limited Sirsa Road, Ellenabad, Sirsa 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 authorized person.
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered office 19 Reliance Centre, Walchand, Hira Chand Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai- 400001.
...…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
Argued by: Sh. S.S. Godara, Advocate for complainant.
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 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 about 117 kanals being 3526/12429 share of total land measuring 414 kanals 6 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 177 Khatuni No. 246 to 252 situated in village Ban Sudhar, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The complainant has OD limit over his above said land through op no.1 and he used to sow crop of Narma in his agriculture land during the Kharif season. The complainant is having his account no. 50200016763141 with op no.1. It is further averred that as per willingness of complainant to insure his crop as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, on 31.07.2017 op no.1 deducted a sum of Rs.5898.75 from the above bank account of complainant against the premium for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 against any kind of damage of his crop and it was assured to him that in case of any damage to his crop, he shall be entitled to get indemnified his claim under the aforesaid policy from ops no.2 and 3. The complainant also submitted necessary documents to op no.1 including copy of Nehri Girdawari etc. as demanded by op no.1. It is further averred that narma crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 was damaged on account of natural calamities, pests,/ diseases and draught and as aforesaid crop of complainant was covered under the policy, therefore complainant approached op no.1 and requested to indemnify his claim but the bank authorities kept on avoiding the request of complainant on one false pretext or the other and now about a week ago they have flatly refused to indemnify his claim saying that he is not entitled to the compensation as the premium amount has been deducted against insurance of his paddy crop. The complainant never sown paddy crop in his fields since last several years and the bank authorities negligently did not insure the Kharif crop of complainant of 2017 and similarly ops no.2 and 3 have committed gross deficiency while accepting the documents supplied by op no.1 and had never checked the same and did not even visit the spot. It is further averred that other farmers have already been compensated by insurers. That such act and conduct on the part of ops amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment. The complainant also got issued a legal notice to the ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as insurance claim amount at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre besides payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, penalty of Rs.10,000/- and also litigation expenses.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has proposed in his loan application that he will sow paddy crop in Kharif and answering op has debited the premium as per the viability of paddy crop which were paid to the insurance company. It is submitted that answering op deducted the amount of premium as per his loan application to insure paddy crop of kharif season of complainant. If he has changed the crop, then it was his duty to inform the op. It is further submitted that insurance company has not raised any objection and accepted the premium for insurance of crop of complainant. Hence, it is presumed that crops of complainant have been insured, hence insurance company is liable to compensate the complainant regarding any loss caused to complainant. If insurance company has not insured the crops of complainant, then it was their duty to refund the amount of insurance premium. It is further submitted that in case they have not refunded the premium, it means that they have accepted the premium and are liable to compensate the answering op. After acceptance of premium, the matter of claim etc. is between the insurance company and the farmer. It is further submitted that as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018, the insurance company cannot take any objection at a later stage. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 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 was given up by learned counsel for complainant in view of the written version filed by op no.2.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.
7. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager as Ex.R1, statement of account Ex.R2 and copy of loan application Ex.R3.
8. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
10. 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, in the application for retail agriculture loan Ex.R3 submitted by him for availing loan facility from op no.1, the complainant proposed that he will sow paddy crop in Kharif and wheat in Rabi season and accordingly loan was granted to him by the bank at the viability of paddy crop also. Said loan application Ex.R3 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. 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.
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: 24.11.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
