BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.: 16 of 2018
Date of Institution: 08.01.2018
Date of order: 28.10.2020.
Subash son of Om Parkash resident of village Bangaon Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
….. Complainant.
Versus
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Ground Floor, SCO 64, Sector-8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Chairman –cum- Managing Director.
- Sarve Haryana Gramin Bank Bangaon Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.
Present: Sh.Sukhbir Dhaka, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Vishnu Delu, counsel for OP No.1.
Sh.Inder Sihag, counsel for OP No.2.
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that he got insured his agriculture land bearing Khewat No.138 khasra No.113, 114 and total land 3.5 acre situated in village Bangaon Tehsil and District Fatehabad insured with the Op No.1 for a sum of assured Rs.24,000/- per acre and a total amount of Rs. 650/- was deducted by the OP no. 2 on 25.07.2016 from the bank account of the complainant bearing no. 83468800001600. The abovesaid insurance was issued under the scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY). Therefore, the complainant is consumer of Ops as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. It is further submitted that the complainant had sown cotton crop in the above said land but unfortunately due to heavy rainfall and flood the cotton crop of the complainant was considerably damaged. Therefore, the complainant moved an application on 18.11.2016 in the office of Agriculture Department at Fatehabad and thereafter the abovesaid land of the complainant was inspected and a loss to the tune of 35% was assessed on 21.11.2016 in 3.5 acres of land by the Loss Assessing Team.
3. It is further submitted by the complainant that an average cotton yield in the area is 10 quintals i.e. 25 manuds per acre but the cotton produce of the complainant is 3.5 Quintals per acre. Thus, the complainant suffered a total loss of 12 quintals in the abovesaid land of 3.5 acres. The market rate of the cotton during the relevant period was Rs. 6,000/- per quintal and as such the complainant had suffered a total loss of Rs. 72,000/-.
4. It is further submitted that in view of the insurance policy issued by the OPs, the OP no. 1 is liable to indemnify the complainant by making him the payment of abovesaid amount. Therefore, the complainant time and again requested OP no. 1 to indemnify him by making the payment of the abovesaid amount but all in vain. It is further submitted that the abovesaid act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant. The complainant has further prayed that the OPs be directed for making a payment of Rs. 72,000/- to the complainant along-with Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. Hence, the present complaint.
5. On being served OP No.1 appeared through counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, territorial jurisdiction, non-intimation of the damage, non-submission of proof of loss or weather report, loss not covered under the scheme, no survey and no quantification of loss, privity of contract, impleading of necessary parties etc. have been raised.
6. It has been further submitted that as per the complainant loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Bangaon due to heavy rain and speedy wind but no date of rain fall or hailstorm or wind storm has been mentioned on the loss assessing report and as per loss assessment report in the Sub Column A of Column No.15 the crop has already been harvested at the time of inspection and as such after harvesting the crop, loss cannot be assessed. The intimation was given on 18.11.2016 and the inspection was got done on 21.11.2018. The insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institution who is part of the scheme. It is further submitted that the abovesaid damage has been described in Clause (4) Sub-section (d) in operation guidelines under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. The complainant had to approach DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and the decision of the said department would be binding on all state Government/Insurance Company/Banks and farmers. The complainant has approached this Forum with bad intention by violating standard terms and conditions of the scheme. The complainant has never approached to the answering Op and even not supplied any document related to loss of crop, therefore refusal of claim of the complainant does not arise. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. Other contentions have been contorverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made.
7. OP No.2 in its separate reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, maintainability and concealment of material facts from this Commission etc. It has been further submitted that the proceeds of such insurance shall be at the option of the bank either by applied towards replacement of the security or towards the satisfaction of the Bank’s dues” and as per Administrative approval of Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare Vide their reference No.13015/03/2016/10854, Dated 17.06.2016 in which it has been clearly mentioned at para No.1 that crops are to be covered (notified crops) and under para No.6, farmers to be covered and clearly specified in para No.6 (b) and 6 (c) for loanee farmers and non-loanee farmers and as such in accordance with the instructions and dirctions of government on dated 25.07.2016 the amount of Rs.650.88 with regard to the land measuring 13 kanal of village Bangaon Tehsil & District Fatehabad have been debited from KCC No. 83468800001600 of the complainant on account of premium of cotton crop insurance and the complainant has taken loan from the answering OP by mortgaging his agriculture land measuring 26 kanal 8 marla situated in village Bangaon, Tehsil & District Fatehabad and 13 kanal crop of cotton of the complainant had been insured with Op No.1 and when the land was insured then the complainant had sown crop of cotton in 13 kanal land and in this respect interview-cum-assessment form for cash credit/short term loan (crop loan) had also been filled in the presence of complainant and the complainant has also put his signature on the said assessment form. If the crop is damaged, in that eventuality, only Op No.1 is liable to pay the amount of compensation and the answering Op has no concern with the same. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint have been made.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A wherein the averments made by the complainant in his complaint have been affirmed. The learned counsel for the complainant also tendered in evidence the documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP no. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Nishant Gera, Authorized Signatory of OP no. 1 as Annexure R5 and the learned counsel for Op No.2 has tendered affidavit of Suresh Kumar, Branch Manager as Annexure R1 and documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R4..
9. The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments contended that the complainant got insured his 3.5 acres of agriculture land under the scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) with OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.24,000/- per acre and a total amount of Rs. 650/- as premium was deducted by the OP no. 2 on 25.07.2016 from the bank account of the complainant bearing no. 83468800001600. It has been further argued that the complainant had sown cotton crop in the above said land but unfortunately due to heavy rainfall and flood the insured cotton crop got considerably damaged and regarding this an application dated 18.11.2016 was moved in the office of Agriculture Department at Fatehabad and thereafter the abovesaid land of the complainant was inspected and a loss to the tune of 35% was assessed on 21.11.2016 in 3.5 acres of land by the Loss Assessing Team.
10. It has been further argued that an average cotton yield in the area is 10 quintals i.e. 25 manuds per acre. The complainant suffered a total loss of 12 quintals in the abovesaid land of 3/5 acres. The market rate of the cotton during the relevant period was Rs. 6,000/- per quintal and as such the complainant had suffered a total loss of Rs. 72,000/- and in view of the insurance policy issued by the OPs, the OP no. 1 is liable to indemnified the complainant by making him the payment of abovesaid amount but the OPs have not indemnify the loss which amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant.
11. Per contra, it has been argued by learned counsel for the Op No.1 that as per the complainant loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Bangaon due to heavy rain and speedy wind but no date of rain fall or hailstorm or wind storm has been mentioned in the loss assessment report and in the Sub Column A of Column No.15 of the loss assessment report, it has been mentioned that the crop has already been harvested at the time of inspection and as such after harvesting the crop, loss cannot be assessed. The intimation was given on 18.11.2016 and the inspection was got done on 21.11.2018. The insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institution who are part of the scheme. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
12. It has been further argued that the complainant had to approach DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and the decision of the said department would be binding on all state Government/Insurance Company/Banks and farmers and the complainant has approached this Forum with bad intention by violating standard terms and conditions of the scheme. The complainant has never approached to the answering Op and even not supplied any document related to loss of crop, therefore refusal of claim of the complainant does not arise. It has been further argued that the claim of the complainant does not fall within the purview of localized calamities as mentioned in column No.4 (d) of notification dated 17.06.2016 issued by State of Haryana through Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP.
13. Learned counsel for the Op No.2 has argued that the complainant had got insured 13 kanals of land and therefore, an amount of Rs.650.88/- was deduced from his KCC account No. 83468800001600 and at the time of insurance, the complainant had sown cotton crop on the said insured land. It has been further argued that the Op No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation on account of damage to the crop and only the insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss, if suffered by the complainant.
14. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. It is the case of the complainant that under the scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) the OP no. 1 issued insurance of cotton crop sown in 3.5 acres of land of the complainant for the year 2016 as is evident through Annexure R3. Since the complainant was a KCC account holder as such the total premium amounting to Rs. 650.88/- was debited from his account by OP no. 2 as is evident through Annexure R2. The cotton crop was insured by OP no. 1 for an amount of Rs. 24,000/- per acre. It is further the case of the complainant that the insured cotton crop of the complainant was damaged considerably by heavy rains and flood. On the application submitted by him to Agriculture Department of Haryana the insured crop was inspected and the inspecting team and the Loss Assessor i.e. the representative of OP no. 1 vide report dated 21.11.2016 (Annexure C1) observed that there is a loss of 35% on account of heavy rains and speedy winds. Therefore, it was the liability of OP no. 1 to indemnify the complainant for the damage occurred in the insured crop. In support of his case the complainant tendered an affidavit in his evidence wherein the averments made in the complaint have been affirmed. The complainant also placed on record copy of Jamabandi (Annexure C-3), copy of Girdawari (Annexure C-4) and copy of KCC Account with OP no. 2 (Annexure C-1).
14. No doubt, insurance scheme was launched by Union of India as Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and certain guidelines were framed regarding the regulations of terms and conditions of the insurance, coverage of the crops and the coverage of the area and it was suggested in the scheme that concerned State Governments will issue the notification in consonance with the scheme. In pursuant to that the State of Haryana issued a notification through Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department on 17.6.2016 in which relevant points were notified as under:-
1. Crops to be covered (Notified crops)
Cotton, Paddy, Bajra and Maize crops will be covered during Kharif 2016 & Wheat, Barley, Mustard and Gram Crops during Rabi 2016-17.
2. Insurance Unit (IU)
The PMFBY will operate on the principle of “Area Approach” in the Insurance Unit (IU). The IU will be the revenue estate (village).
- Area to be covered
The PMFBY will be implemented in the entire State on cluster approach.
- Coverage of Risks and Exclusions
The following stages of the crop and risks leading to crop loss will be covered under the scheme.
- Prevented Sowing/Planting Risk: Coverage of risk in case the insured area is prevented from sowing/planting due to deficit rainfall or adverse seasonal conditions.
- Standing Crop (Sowing to harvesting): Comprehensive risk insurance will be provided to cover yield losses due to non-preventable risks, viz. Drought, Dry spells, Flood, Inundation, Pests and Diseases, Landslides, Natural Fire and Lightening, Storm, Hailstorm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane and Tornado.
- Post – Harvest Losses: Coverage will be available only up to a maximum period of two weeks from harvesting for those crops which are allowed to dry in cut and spread condition in the field after harvesting against specific perils of cyclone, cyclonic rains and unseasonal rains.
- Localized Calamities: Loss/damage resulting from occurrence of identified localized risks of hailstorm, landslide and inundation affecting isolated farms will be covered. General Exclusions: Losses arising out of war and nuclear risks, malicious damage and other preventable risks will be excluded.
- Implementing agencies
- Cluster – I Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
- Cluster – II Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
- Cluster – III ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
- Farmers to be covered
- All farmers including share – croppers and tenant farmers growing the notified crops in the IU will be eligible for coverage under the scheme.
- All farmers availing Seasonal Agricultural Operations (SAO) loans from Financial Institutions (i.e. loanee farmers) for the notified crops would be covered compulsorily.
- The scheme will be optional for the non-loanee farmers.
- Indemnity Level
The indemnity level will be 90% in case of all the notified crops.
15. In the present case it is clear that OP no. 1 had issued insurance of cotton crop sown in 13 kanal of agriculture land of the complainant. It is also not disputed that premium of Rs. 650.88/- was debited through OP no. 2 from the KCC account of the complainant for insurance of the cotton crop at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per acre. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of application dated 18.11.2016 submitted by the complainant the insured crop was inspected by a team comprising of Agriculture Development Officer and loss assessor i.e. representative of Op No.1. It is also not disputed that vide inspection report dated 21.11.2016 the inspecting team observed that there is a loss to the tune of 35% in insured area wherein cotton was sown. Vide inspection report Annexure C-2, it is also observed that damage had occurred to the insured crop on account of heavy rainfall and speedy wind.
16. It is the case of OP no. 1 that only localized claims/damages are to be decided by the insurance company and other risks are to be handled by the Government and in the localized claims/damages only three types of perils/calamities i.e. hail storm, landslide and inundation are covered whereas in the present case the damage to the insured crop is on account of heavy rains and speedy winds and as such the same is not payable. The spirit and object behind the scheme is to protect the insured/farmers crops against the natural perils/calamities and adverse weather conditions. Undoubtedly, heavy rains and speedy winds are adverse weather conditions for the cotton crop. If mis-guided and narrow interpretations are taken by the implementers of the beneficial scheme than its very objective and purpose will be defeated. In the present case as per Inspection Report Annexure C-2 the damage to the insured cotton crop has occurred on account of heavy rains and speedy wind. It is a thing of common knowledge that inundation/water logging in the crops is caused on account of heavy rains. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that damage caused to the insured cotton crop is covered under the localized risks. Moreover, the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Vs. M/s R.P. Bricks cited as 2013 (2) CPJ 613 has held that loss caused due to heavy rains is covered under the definition of inundation. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Agriculture Insurance Company of India Vs. Kishan Lal and others and cited as 2014 (1) CPJ 391 is also relied upon. Moreover, perusal of the case file reveals that at the time of inspection of the agriculture land of the complainant, the representative of the Op No.1 was present and he had affixed his signature on the bottom of report Annexure C1, therefore, the Op No.1 cannot take the plea that the matter was not in its knowledge and the complainant has never approached the Op No.1.
17. It is also pertinent to mention here that in similarly situated cases wherein the damage to the insured cotton crop was caused on account of heavy rains and speedy wind the OP no. 1 has already paid insurance claim to the insured land owners. The policy of pick and choose in the payment of insurance claim adopted by OP no. 1 is not justified.
18. As discussed above, it is not disputed that insurance of the cotton crop of the complainant was issued by OP no. 1 against perils/natural calamities and adverse weather conditions. It is also not disputed that the OP no. 1 has received premium in time for the said insurance. It is also not disputed that the insured cotton crop of the complainant was damaged due to adverse weather conditions/natural calamity i.e. heavy rains and speedy wind. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the claim of the complainant is a bonafide claim. It is a settled proposition of law that a genuine/ bonafide insurance claim cannot be repudiated on the technical ground of delay or procedural lapses. The spirit of insurance policy be kept in mind while deciding the insurance claim. It is also pertinent to discuss here that the complainant is a KCC account holder and in his case as per policy issued by the Government of India the crop insurance is mandatory and as such the premium of insurance was debited from his account without his consent and knowledge and no terms and conditions of insurance policy was issued to him. Moreover, in its reply the OP no. 1 has not mentioned that the terms and conditions of the policy were issued to the complainant. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the claim of the complainant cannot be denied on the ground of any delay of some days in giving intimation or any other procedural lapse on the part of the complainant. Reliance is placed on the judgment recorded by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in case titled as Shriram General Ins. Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar 2014 (2) CLT 390 (HR).
19. So, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OP no. 1 in rendering service to the complainant. The present complaint is accordingly partly allowed because the insurance premium to the tune of Rs.650.88 was deducted from the account of the complainant for insuring 13 kanal of land only and not 3.5 acres as alleged by the complainant.
20. Regarding quantification of loss, it is submitted that as per inspection report Annexure C-2, the total damaged area is 3.5 acres but the complainant has paid premium of insurance for 13 kanal land. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the OP no. 1 had insured the cotton crop in question at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per acre. So, keeping in view the 35% loss the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 13650/- in 13 kanal of the insured area. Therefore, the OP no. 1 is directed to make a payment of Rs.13,650/- (Rs Thirteen thousand six hundred fifty only) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization. The OP no. 1 is also further directed for making a payment of Rs. 3,100/- (Rs.Three thousand one hundred only) as litigation charges to the complainant. The abovesaid order be complied with within a period of 45 days, otherwise the abovesaid amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum during the period of default. No deficiency is found on the part of OP no. 2. The present complaint is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Dated:28.10.2020
(Raghbir Singh) President (Rajni Goyat)
Member
