BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 23 of 2019
Date of Institution : 22.01.2019.
Date of Decision : 25.09.2019.
Ashok Kumar son of Rajender, resident of village Rampura Dhillon, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Hometell Hotel, Chandigarh.
- Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Haryana.
- HDFC Bank SRB Building, Janta Bhawan Road, GPO Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER.
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Mandeep Singh, Statistical Assistant on behalf of opposite party No.2.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The case of complainant in brief is that complainant is a farmer by profession and is owner of agricultural land and cultivates the land of his own. As per Government notification, after the introduction of crop insurance scheme, every farmer was informed by the concerned bank to give the details of their crop for the season so that the crop can be insured against the various natural calamities. It is further averred that complainant has provided the documents and details as demanded by op no.3 and on satisfaction, the op no.3 had deducted the premium from the account of complainant. The complainant is having his account with op no.3 bearing account number 50200004338170. The complainant had got insured crop of his 37 acres of land for which op no.3 had deducted the amount of Rs.18,657.60 from the account of complainant on 31.7.2018 and a confirmation message regarding insurance of his crop with op no.1 was also sent on his mobile. It is further averred that crop of complainant was insured at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per acre alongwith interest. That op no.2 had visited to the village of complainant and examined that the damage is caused in the village from the calamity. That in the year 2017, the crop of complainant was completely damaged due to white fly and other natural disaster, which is full covered under the Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for which the complainant had paid the premium and which was duly accepted by op no.1 and op no.3. It is further averred that complainant informed about the damage to ops and to the surprise of complainant, the op no.1 stated that amount has not been submitted/ transferred with them. The complainant had narrated that amount has been already deducted by op no.3 from his account. The op no.1 denied the receipt of such payment and sent him to op no.3. It is further averred that complainant visited to op no.3 for getting the details of his premium on which it was malafidely stated that premium was refunded back in his account on 2.8.2017 without any genuine reason. That the complainant got shocked and enquired about the matter and stated that no such intimation was given to the complainant about returning of the amount in his bank. The complainant enquired about the use of amount of complainant by op no.1 and op no.3 for so many days but they did not give any answer. The complainant visited to ops no.1 and 3 many times in this regard but to no effect. That complainant is wholly dependent upon the crop production. The ops malafidely refused to pay the insured amount to the complainant and being a poor farmer he had suffered a huge loss and also suffered mental agony due to the act and conduct of the ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising preliminary objections. It is submitted 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 & DW 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/ Banks and farmers. It is further submitted that complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of crop which is 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 based claims are decided by Government, no survey no qualification of loss, no privity of contract, non impleading of necessary parties and involvement of complicated facts are also taken. On merits, 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 and baseless story just to grab the compensation. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections as taken by op no.1. It is submitted that op no.2 is only liable to conduct the crop cutting experience and also made its report according to CCE’s and which is prescribed in the operational guidelines issued by the Government of India under PMFBY. It is further submitted that yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only and on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme, which have already been given by op no.2 within specific time period. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 prayed for.
4. Opposite party no.3 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op bank had deducted the amount from the account of complainant for paying the same to op no.1 company under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna as per instruction of complainant as the insurance of the crops is got done by the party i.e. the owner of the land and the crops and not by the Bank. In this way, the insurance contract is in between the owner and the insurance company and op bank is not a party to the same in any manner. It is further submitted that amount under the above said insurance policy was deducted from the account of complainant at his asking and not at the level of the bank itself. Thereafter, the complainant objected to it strongly and asserted that as to why the bank has debited the aforesaid amount without the consent of complainant, therefore, the bank had refunded this amount to the complainant. In this way, the complainant himself is liable and responsible for non insurance of the crops of complainant and there is no fault or deficiency in service on the part of answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant, learned counsel for opposite party no.1, Sh. Mandeep Singh, SA on behalf of op no.2 and learned counsel for op no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of statement of account Ex.C1, khasra girdawari Ex.C2, copy of jamabandi Ex.C3 and copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C4. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture Ex.R1, copy of notification of Haryana Government Ex.R2 and copy of village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim Ex.R3. OP no.3 produced affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager and Principal Officer as Ex.R4 and copy of statement of account as Ex.R5. Op no.1 did not produce any document.
8. The complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that he is owner of the land measuring 37 acres and got insured his crop from op no.1 through op no.3 for which op no.3 had deducted a sum of Rs.18,657.60 from the account of complainant on 31.7.2018. The complainant has not mentioned the killa number, khasra number or khewat number of the land which is owned and possessed by him in which he has sown crops. He has further not mentioned which land of complainant was inspected by officials of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa in order to assess loss of the crop. The perusal of para no.8 of the complaint reveals that complainant has not even mentioned name of the crop which was sown by him in the year 2017 and which was damaged due to natural calamities or by white fly.
9. As per version of complainant, an amount of Rs.18657.60 was deducted by the bank/ op no.3 from his bank account on 31.7.2018 and same was refunded by bank in his account on 2.8.2017 whereas as per statement of account, amount was deducted on 31.7.2017 and same was refunded to the complainant on 2.8.2017.
10. The op bank has taken a categorical and specific stand that complainant strongly objected that why the bank has debited the aforesaid amount without his consent, therefore, the bank had refunded the amount to the complainant and complainant himself is liable and responsible for non insurance of the crops of complainant. In order to prove this contention, the op bank has relied upon affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R4 and also copy of statement of account as Ex.R5. The complainant has not denied the defence plea of op bank in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A that he never objected for deduction of premium amount from his account for insurance of his crop rather his affidavit is only repetition of the contents as mentioned in the complaint. So, it appears from the evidence of the op bank that after strong objection of complainant regarding deduction of the premium amount, the amount of Rs.18,657.60 was refunded in the account of complainant on 2.8.2017 meaning thereby that crop of complainant was never got insured by complainant himself. As such complaint of complainant does not appear to be maintainable for seeking compensation for the loss of crop in the year 2017.
11. 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 in open Forum. President,
Dated:25.09.2019. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
