BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 246 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 09.05.2019.
Date of Decision : 17.10.2022.
1. Virender Kalra aged about 55 years son of Shri Om Parkash Kalra,
2. Anita Rani aged about 50 years wife of Shri Virender Kumar, both residents of H. No. 259, C-Block, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank Ltd. Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ABW Towers, Unit No. 511-512, 5th Floor, M.G. Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurugram- 122001 through its Director.
...…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. Vikas Kharian, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
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 having 22 acres of land situated in village Mehnakhera, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa comprised in Khewat Nos. 121, 115, 118, 119, 449 as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018. They are having their account bearing No. 50200024227731 with op no.1 and have availed KCC facility from op no.1 on their above said agriculture land. On 31.07.2017, an amount of Rs.12116.40 was deducted by op no.1 from their above said account for insurance of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 with op no.2 and as such their cotton crop was got insured by op no.1 bank with op no.2 under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna. That complainants asked the op no.1 to provide them copy of insurance policy, but op no.1 did not supply the same. It is further averred that in the village, the crop of Kharif, 2017 was destroyed/ damaged including crop of complainants on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and therefore, complainants are entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per acre. The complainants approached the ops and requested them to pay the claim of damages to their crops but on all the occasions, the ops asked the complainants to wait stating that the process of claims take sometime. In the meantime, op no.1 again deducted premium in the month of December, 2017 for insurance of wheat crop of Rabi, 2017-2018 and also in the month of July, 2018 for cotton crop of Kharif, 2018. It is further averred that thereafter complainants were told that their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 was not insured and insurance premium was returned back in their account after two days of its deduction. Neither any intimation in this regard nor any notice was issued by ops to the complainants for non insurance of the crop and even on asking, the ops failed to show any reason for the same. The op no.1 verbally told that it is the fault of op no.2 regarding non insurance whereas op no.2 is stating that this is fault of op no.1. It is further averred that both the ops in collusion with each other have deliberately done so for causing loss to the complainants and this amounts to gross negligence of service on the part of ops. The complainants approached the ops and requested them to compensate them but the ops in the second week of March, 2019 flatly refused to admit their claim. The complainants also filed earlier consumer complaint against the ops but same was withdrawn on 27.3.2019 on account of some technical default. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.12,116.40 was debited in the account of complainants on 31.07.2017 to pay the insurance premium for insurance of Kharif crop. Official of the bank called the complainants to provide KYC required for crop insurance for submission to insurance company alongwith insurance premium. Complainants came present and objected that why said amount has been debited in their account and asked that they had not required insurance for their crop. Officials of the bank requested them to submit any application/ letter in this regard but they refused to provide the same. Hence, amount debited in their account on 31.07.2017 was again credited in account of complainants on 2.8.2017 and in this way, Kharif crops of 2017 of complainants could not be insured. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage of alleged loss, insurance company cannot be quested for proposal related disputes, not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, 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 if any mistake is done by complainants or by bank of complainants, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied. It is submitted that claim of complainants was rejected as crop loss occurred due to rains but the same is not leading to Inundation which is covered for loss under the scheme and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainants have tendered affidavit of Virender Kalra complainant Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Subhash Chander Ex.CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.
6. On the other hand, Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1 and statement of account Ex.R2.
7. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. The complainants have claimed insurance claim amount for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. However, the op no.2 bank has taken a specific stand that though insurance premium amount of Rs.12,116.40 was deducted from the account of complainants on 31.7.2017 for insuring their crop of Kharif, 2017 with op no.2 but as complainants raised objection regarding deduction of premium amount from their account, therefore, at their instance the premium amount was reversed back in their account on 2.8.2017 and their cotton crop was not insured. The perusal of copy of statement of account of complainants Ex.C3 and Ex.R2 also reveals that premium amount of Rs.12,116.40 which was deducted from the account of complainants on 31.07.2017 was reversed back in their account on 02.08.2017 i.e. within two days of its deduction. Since the premium amount was remitted back in the account of complainants at their own instance as complainants objected for deduction of the same and stated that insurance of crop is not required, therefore, now complainants are estopped from filing the present complaint by their own act and conduct. No doubt, op no.1 bank also subsequently deducted premium amount for insurance of crops of complainant of Rabi, 2018 but that itself does not make entitle the complainants to claim insurance claim for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 as premium amount which was deducted by op no.1 bank on 31.7.2017 was reversed back in their account on 2.8.2017 at the instance of complainants.
10. In view of our above discussion, there is no 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: 17.10.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
