BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 458 of 2019.                                                                        

                                                       Date of Institution :    13.08.2019.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    19.10.2022.

1. Tek Chand (aged about 45 years);

2. Nanak Ram (aged about 47 years);

3. Niyamat Ram @ Niyamat Chand (aged about 42 years);

4. Lal Chand @ Labh Chand (aged about 50 years);

all sons of Sh. Diwan Chand son of Sh. Sona Ram, residents of village Suchan Kotli, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                             Versus.

1. HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch G.P.O. Sirsa (Branch Code – 1413), S.R.B. Building, Janta Bhawan Road, GPO, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.

2. HDFC Bank Limited having its registered office “HDFC Bank House”, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 through its authorized Signatory.

...…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. Rakesh Pareek, Advocate for complainants.

                   Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

                   The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).

2.       In brief, the case of complainants is that they are agriculturists. They are having their respective shares in agricultural land (as detailed in Para No.1 (i) to (iv) of the complaint) situated in village Bhavdin and Kusumbi, Tehsil and District Sirsa. They are having their joint KCC account bearing no. 14138040007512 with op no.1. On 31.07.2017, an amount of Rs.5727.15 was deducted by op no.1 from said account of complainants as insurance premium and it was assured to the complainants that their cotton crops of Kharif, 2017 have been insured with insurance company under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna. The complainants sown crop of cotton in their land in Kharif, 2017 which was damaged on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught, therefore, complainants approached to op no.1 and requested to indemnify their claim under the said policy but the bank authorities kept on avoiding the request of complainants on one false pretext or the other and ultimately they have flatly refused to indemnify the claim of complainants saying that complainants are not entitled to the compensation as the premium amount has been deducted from their account against the insurance of their paddy crop, whereas the complainants had never sown the paddy crop in their fields since for the last several years particularly during Kharif, 2017. It is further averred that it is clear that it is the bank authorities which negligently did not insure the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainants and similarly they have committed gross deficiency in service as they had never checked the documents supplied to them and did not visit the spot on account of which complainants have been deprived off from the benefits of the policy. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply. It is submitted that at the time of advancement of loan to the complainants by ops, the complainants had declared the pattern of crop of their land as paddy-wheat. The complainants had never informed the Bank regarding the change of the pattern of the crop. The bank has debited the amount of Rs.5727.15 on 31.07.2017 from the account of complainants and has credited the same to the account of the insurance company ICICI Lombard as premium of the insurance. All the information required by the insurance company was sent to them as per rules. The complainant has never declared the change of pattern of the crop or that he had sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2017. Remaining contents of complainant are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.       Complainant has tendered affidavit of Tek Chand complainant as Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13.

5.       On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Sourabh Mehta, Assistant Manager as Ex.RW1/A, application for agriculture loan Ex.R1 and copy of statement of account Ex.R2.  

6.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.       The complainants are claiming insurance claim amount for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. However, ops have taken a specific stand that at the time of advancement of loan amount to the complainants, they declared pattern of crop as paddy and wheat and they never informed the bank regarding the change of pattern of their crop. The ops have also pleaded that complainants did not inform the ops that they have sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2017. The ops have also placed on file application for agriculture loan as Ex.R1 which is duly signed by the complainants, the perusal of which reveals that at the time of taking loan from the ops bank, the complainants declared the pattern of crop as paddy in Kharif season and wheat in Rabi season and at the viability of paddy crop, the loan amount was sanctioned by the bank to the complainants. The complainants have not placed on file any document to show that they ever informed the ops bank regarding change of pattern of their crop. Even in the affidavit of complainant Tek Chand Ex.CW1/A, he has not denied the fact that they have not availed crop loan for paddy crop. Since cotton crop of complainants was not got insured by ops bank nor any intimation qua change of pattern of crop was ever given by complainants to ops, it appears that complainants are not entitled for loss of cotton crop which was not insured with insurance company and for which premium was not deducted by op no.2 bank. Moreover, the insurance company to whom the premium amount was paid by bank has not been impleaded as a party to the complaint. If the complainants changed the crop from paddy to cotton, intimation of change of crop should have been given by the complainants to the ops. Since, no intimation regarding change of crop has been given to the ops, therefore, complainants are estopped from filing the present complaint by their own act and conduct.

8.       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 free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced:                             Member      Member                President,

Dated: 19.10.2022.                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                            Redressal Commission, Sirsa.