BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 28 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 04.02.2021.
Date of Decision : 30.04.2024.
1. Nirmal Singh @ Jarnail Singh, aged 64 years, son of Shri Pirthi Singh son of Shri Ganda Singh, 2. Jagjit Singh, aged 34 years son of Shri Nirmal Singh @ Jarnail Singh son of Shri Pirthi Singh, 3. Sukhpal Kaur, aged 59 years wife of Shri Nirmal Singh @ Jarnail Singh son of Shri Pirthi Singh, all residents of village Lakkarwali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
1. ICICI Bank Ltd., Kaureana Branch, Tehsil Talwandi Saboo, District Bathinda (Punjab), through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd., Nathana Branch, District Bathinda (Punjab) through its Branch Manager.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 4th Floor, Plot No. 149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometell Hotel, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/ authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. H.S. Aulakh, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainants have filed the present joint complaint 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 by profession and are owner in possession of land measuring 68 kanals situated within the revenue estate of village Lakkarwali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa. Besides it, they also used to take other land on contract/ theka basis. The complainants have availed cropo loan under Kissan Credit Limit facility to the tune of Rs.24,20,000/- from op no.1 against mortgage of their agricultural land. The said loan account was later on transferred to ICICI Bank, Branch Nathana op no.2 in 2018. It is further averred that as per crop insurance scheme, the op no.1 deducted the amount of Rs.14,757/- as insurance premium from the loan account of complainants and got insured cotton crop sown by them in 35 acres of land with op no.3 for sum assured amount of Rs.69,000/- per hectare. The complainants had sown cotton crop in their above land in Kharif 2017 season which was destroyed due to climatic conditions. The Agriculture department had surveyed the agricultural fields of village Lakkarwali and as per survey report, the average yield of cotton crop in village Lakkarwali in Kharif, 2017 was 299.25 Kgs. per hectare against threshold yield of 639.18 Kgs. per hectare. It is further averred that op no.3 thereafter settled the claim of other farmers and paid insurance claim to affected insured farmers in February, 2019 but very strangely left the complainants and did not pay any amount to them. That complainant inquired about non payment of insurance claim for damaged crop from ops no.1 and 2 whereupon they were told that paddy crop of complainants had been got insured by them and thus no compensation for cotton crop can be paid by op no.3. The complainants were highly surprised and astonished to hear this because they had categorically informed the ops no.1 and 2 banks that they had sown cotton crops in 68 kanals of land and a copy of girdawari of cotton crop was also provided by complainants to the op no.1 at the time of insurance of aforesaid crop, but op no.1 in utmost gross negligence and careless manner got insured paddy crop in Kharif, 2017 crop season and as such they could not get compensation. It is further averred that as per report of Agriculture department, no paddy was sown in village Lakkarwali in Kharif 2017 crop season. That op no.3 also showed its inability in the matter and thereby refused to accept the request of complainant whereas op no.3 was under legal obligation to visit the spot of the land and to verify the actual crop sown at the spot and as such op no.3 has also acted in an negligent and careless manner. That complainants approached the ops and requested them to admit their claim but they did not pay any heed and have refused to do so a week back. The complainants had also lodged a claim at CM Window on 26.06.2019 but of no use and in this way the ops have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainants and have caused unnecessary harassment and financial loss to them. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Ops no.1 and 2 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, suppression of true and material facts, estoppal and that complaint is hopelessly time barred. On merits, it is submitted that KCC account of complainants was opened in the year 2018 and not in the year 2016 as alleged. The cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 was not got insured as alleged rather the complainants had provided the information about the sowing of paddy crop in their land. It is further submitted that crop insurance is a regulatory requirement for all the loanee farmers as per the operating guidelines of PMFBY and the answering ops bank take a one time authorization from all the loanee farmers for debiting the crop insurance premium on the basis of notifications received from the insurance companies. In case of crop damage, the survey of the area is to be done by respective Government authorities and banks have no role in it. The Government authorities shall share the result of the survey with the respective insurance company. It is further submitted that for any query regarding survey, one needs to visit the local panchayat level, taluka level or district level agricultural official. All farmers in a specific village are insured for specific crop. As and when claims are calculated and released by insurance company, the same gets credited to customer account if found eligible. It is further submitted that with reference to dispute pertaining to crop insurance claims for Kharif, 2017, the bank debited the crop insurance premium. The bank acts as an intermediary in the crop insurance process. The bank debits crop insurance premium from borrowers’ account as per guidelines mentioned in the notifications issued for specific cropping season under PMFBY. That against the premium debited by the bank for the notified crops, if the customer is found eligible for claims, the bank will credit the claims received in the borrower account once the payment is released to the bank. The claim processing and release of claims for notified crops is done by the respective crop insurance companies as identified by the respective State Govt. It is further submitted that claim for the crop loss was to be settled and paid by the insurance company and answering op has no role to play therein. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua ops no.1 and 2 made.
4. Op no.3 did not file any written version despite availing several opportunities including last opportunities and as such defence of op no.3 was struck of.
5. The complainants in evidence have tendered affidavit of Sh. Nirmal Singh complainant as Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19.
6. Ops no.1 and 2 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities including three last opportunities and as such evidence of ops no.1 and 2 was closed by order.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. At the very outset, we would like to mention here that though defence of op no.3 was struck of, but however, learned counsel for op no.3 tendered affidavit Ex. RW3/A and documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/7. Though no evidence can be led if defence is struck of, however, the documents can be perused for the just and proper decision of the case, if required and same can be helpful for the adjudication of the case.
9. Though complainants in their complaint have mentioned that premium amount of Rs.14,757.60 was deducted from the loan account of complainants for insurance of their crop of Kharif, 2017, but from the perusal of copies of statements of accounts of complainants Nirmal Singh Ex.C2 it is evident that on 25.07.2017 premium amount of Rs.14,757.60 was deducted from his account and similarly on 25.07.2017 premium amount of Rs.15,520.58 was also deducted from the account of complainant Jagjit Singh whereas complainants claims that amount of Rs.14757.60 was deducted from their joint loan account and the perusal of statements of accounts reveal that their account is not joint. Further more, name of complainant Sukhpal Kaur does not find mention anywhere in both the above statements of accounts. Moreover, from the statement of account of Jagjit Singh Ex.C3 it is evident that on 08.02.2019 he had received insurance claim amount of Rs.1,03,849/- for the loss of kharif crop of 2017 but complainants in their entire complaint have not mentioned this fact. So, it seems that entire pleadings of complainants is defective. Further more, at some places they have mentioned that they had sown cotton crop in 35 acres of land whereas at some places they are mentioning that they informed the ops no.1 and 2 banks that they had sown cotton crop in their 68 kanals of land. Moreover, complainants have claimed insurance claim amount of Rs.5,19,720/- for 14.163 hectares of land but the calculation given by complainants itself is wrong and incorrect but in the relief para the complainants have sought claim amount of Rs.5,19,720/- for loss of cotton crop grown in 68 kanals of land. The complainants had only record of their 68 kanals of land and have not placed on record any record regarding their taking of other land on lease. As such entire pleading of complainants is defective and even the complainants are not entitled to any other insurance amount as complainant Jagjit Singh has already received claim amount and according to complainants themselves they are having their joint land but have not mentioned the fact of receiving claim by Jagjit Singh in their complaint. Further more, complainants are not entitled to any claim amount of Rs.5,19,720/- for loss of their cotton crop in 68 kanals of land and since complainant no.2 has already received claim amount of Rs.1,03,849/- as such in totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the pleadings being defective and not clear, the complainants are not entitled to any other amount and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. 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 President
Dt. 30.04.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
