BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 362 of 2019
Date of Institution : 11.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 05.03.2020.
Yagay Dutt aged about 58 years son of Shri Manphool, resident of #1286 Kanganpur Road, Kirti Nagar, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank, Janta Bhawan Road, 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.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. K.R. Taak, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is an agriculturist and is having about 88 kanals 11 marlas agriculture land comprised in Khewat No. 472 Khatuni No. 861 vide jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 situated at village Risalia Khera, Tehsil and District Sirsa. That complainant has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on his above said agriculture land vide account No. 50200021843758 since 17.10.2016. It is further averred that Government of India had launched a crop insurance scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for the agriculturists and as per insurance scheme, a collaboration between the banks and insurance companies was done to insure the crops of farmers who have availed KCC limit from the bank. That for insurance of crop of kharif, 2017, a sum of Rs.7258/- was deducted by op no.1 from the above said account of complainant on 31.7.2017 and op no.1 had got insured the crop from op no.2 under the collaboration scheme for any kind of damage to the crop of complainant. That complainant sown crop in kharif, 2017 and was relaxed qua insurance of the same with op no.2 for which amount of insurance premium deducted by op no.1 was transferred to op no.2 by op no.1. It is further averred that op no.1 did not provide copy of insurance policy to complainant despite his request and op no.1 stated that it might take sometime and that otherwise also entry in the passbook/ statement of account regarding deduction of premium is a proof in the hands of account holder and as such complainant did not bother about the insurance policy papers in his name. That crop of kharif, 2017 in the village of complainant was destroyed/ damaged on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and similarly crops of complainant has also been damaged and as such complainant is entitled to get compensation on account of damages caused to his crops to the tune of Rs.40,000/- per acre. That complainant approached the ops and requested for the claim of damages to his crops but on all the occasions the ops asked the complainant to wait stating that process of claims take some time to accomplish. Meanwhile, op no.1 has again deducted premium in the month of December, 2017 for insurance of rabi crop of 2017-2018. That even after passing of more than one and half years, the complainant did not get claim for damages of crop of kharif, 2017 whereas some villagers have already got compensation within a year. The complainant contacted the ops in this regard but in vain. That it appears that both the ops in collusion with each other have deliberately done so for causing loss to the complainant with a malafide intention which amounts to gross negligence of service on the part of ops. That complainant again approached the ops and requested them to compensate him but the ops about a week ago flatly refused to admit the genuine claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. Agriculture and Farmer, Welfare Department Notification No. 941-Agri-II (I)- 2018// 4332 dated 30.3.2018, Insurance Company shall verify the date of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the State Govt. failing which no objection by the insurance company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the insurance company to pay the claim. In the present case, insurance company has accepted the premium without any objection and has never refunded the same, so it is presumed that insurance company has insured the crops of complainant after accepting the premium. It is further submitted that op no.2 has accepted the amount of Rs.7258/- as premium for insurance, hence it was its duty to provide insurance policy to the complainant. The complainant is entitled for compensation from op no.2 who has accepted the premium of insurance for insurance of crops of complainant. Complainant has never visited to the answering op rather the matter of payment of compensation is between complainant and op no.2. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Risalia Khera, Tehsil and District Sirsa due to the reason mentioned in the loss assess report “Rains not lead to Inundation” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground given in the loss assess report alone. It is further submitted that insurance company cannot be questioned for proposal related disputes. The role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done either by complainant himself or by bank of complainant. In the present complaint, complainant is claiming for cotton crop, but 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. It is further submitted that it is clarified that except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalized by government agencies on the basis of yield of crop and thereafter, claims were to be paid to bank of farmers. The insurance company is playing a role of implementing agency in the scheme in accordance with guidelines prescribed by Government. Further more, in localized claims, three perils are covered under the scheme i.e. Hailstorm, Landslide and Inundation affecting isolated farms in the notified area. For localized claims, there was a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. After intimation of claim, necessary survey of affected area had to be conducted by surveyor for decision of claim of farmers. It is further 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/ Bank and farmers. But instead of filing complaint or grievance before DAC & FW department, the complainant has approached this Forum by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme and thus, present complaint cannot be adjudicated before this Forum. It is further submitted that complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of crop and thus, connected story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim. Merely allegation of claim intimation is not enough to establish that loss had actually occurred. Further, in absence of immediate intimation of claim, survey of damage field could not be conducted and therefore, it is almost impossible to determine quantification of loss. As per guidelines of scheme, immediate intimation was to be given within 48 hours but complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss of crop which reveals violation of terms and conditions of scheme. Other preliminary objections regarding 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 and involvement of complicated facts and law are involved are also taken. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and above said pleas are also reiterated. It is submitted that claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss was occurred due to “Rains” but the 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. With these averments, prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant as well as op no.1 then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.,CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of statement of account Ex.C1, copy of jamabandi for year 2016-2017 Ex.C2, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C3, copy of statement of account Ex.C4 and copy of jamabandi Ex.C5. On the other hand, op no.1 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1 and copy of statement of account Ex.R2. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence.
7. It is proved fact on record that complainant is having his agriculture land in village Risalia Khera, Tehsil and District Sirsa and is holding KCC account with op no.1. It is further proved on record that op no.1 had deducted a sum of Rs.7258/- on account of premium on 31.7.2017 from KCC account of complainant for insurance of crop of kharif, 2017 of complainant and got the crop of complainant insured from op no.2 and particulars were uploaded on the portal by op no.1 to op no.2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.1 has also placed on record copy of particulars regarding crop of complainant, application ID, scheme, insurance company and remittance date of premium by which premium amount was sent to op no.2 in order to get crop of complainant insured. Op no.2 in its written statement in para no.2 of written statement has categorically admitted the fact that insurance of the farmer has been done on good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers. The complainant has placed on record report of Assistant Statistical Officer, office of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa by which he has reported that average yield of cotton crop of village Risalia Khera for kharif, 2017 is 25.74 Kg. per hectare and threshold yield of cotton crop of block Dabwali for kharif, 2017 is 628.02 Kg. per hectare which clearly reveals that average yield of cotton of village Risalia Khera was less than threshold yield of block Dabwali for kharif, 2017. There are specific allegations of complainant that cotton crop of complainant was damaged which was got insured from op no.2 through op no.1. Since loss of cotton crop of complainant is proved on record, complainant appears to be entitled for compensation on account of loss of crop from insurance company i.e. op no.2 with whom crop of complainant was insured. Non payment of insurance claim amounts to deficiency in service on part of op no.2. However, op no.1 has discharged its duty and there is no deficiency of service on the part of op no.1 towards the complainant and as such complaint against op no.1 stands dismissed.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint against the opposite party no.2 and direct the op no.2 to settle and pay the claim of complainant at par with other farmers of village Risalia Khera (who have already get compensation amount for loss of their crops) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum on the claim amount from the date of order till actual payment. We also direct the op no.2 to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:05.03.2020. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
