BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 54 of 2019
Date of Institution : 30.01.2019.
Date of Decision : 10.09.2019.
Banarshi Devi aged about 48 years wife of Shri Madan Lal son of Shri Sultan Singh, resident of village & PO Khairekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometell Hotel, Chandigarh, through its Manager.
- Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Office at Ch. Devi Lal University, Sirsa District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
- Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Haryana.
...…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. B.N. Suthar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Y.K. Garg, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO for Opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The case of complainant in brief is that complainant is owner in possession of land measuring 32 kanals 17 marlas in village Kanwarpura, Tehsil and District Sirsa as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint. The complainant is having her loan account with op no.2 Bank bearing account No.15175115003891 and the op no.2 got insured the cotton crop of 32 kanals 17 marlas land as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for which op no.2 deducted the premium amount of Rs.1780.26 from the account of complainant on 31.7.2017 and remitted the same to op no.1 insurance company. It is further averred that said kapas/ cotton crop grown by complainant in kharif 2017 crop season was destroyed due to climatic conditions. The agriculture department i.e. op no.3 had surveyed the agricultural fields of village Kanwarpura and submitted its report to ops no.1 and 2. The op no.1 thereafter settled the claim of other farmers as well as neighbourers of the complainant’s field and also paid the insurance claim at the rate of Rs.19,500/- per acre, but very strangely left the complainant and did not pay any amount to him as compensation. It is further averred that complainant contacted the officers of op no.1 and inquired about non payment of her insurance claim for damaged crop, whereupon the complainant was told that only paddy crop had been got insured by op no.2 bank and thus, no compensation for kapas/ cotton crop can be paid. The complainant was highly surprised to hear this because he had categorically informed the op no.2 bank that she had sown cotton crop in her 32 kanals 17 marlas of land. A copy of girdawari was also provided by complainant to op no.1 at the time of insurance of aforesaid crop, but op no.2 in utmost gross negligent and careless manner got insured paddy crop instead of cotton crop of kharif 2017. In this manner, the complainant due to gross negligent, deficient and careless act and conduct of op no.2 could not get compensation for her damaged crop of cotton. It is further averred that op no.2 had sanctioned loan through kissan credit card on 3.9.2012 against crop of cotton and wheat. The op no.2 had also issued a certificate qua the crop of cotton/ kapas in this regard. The Khasra girdawari for the year 2011-2012 to 2017-18 also shows that only cotton crop was sown by complainant in the said land. That complainant approached the ops and requested them to admit her claim and to pay compensation amount for her damaged cotton crop, but they did not pay any heed and have refused to do so a month back. It is further averred that complainant had filed similar complaint before this Forum which was withdrawn on 15.1.2019 due to technical ground with the liberty to file fresh complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 to 3 appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Bangaon, Tehsil and District Fatehabad 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. It is further submitted that 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 or by bank of complainant. 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 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. For localized claims, there was a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss and after intimation of claim, necessary survey of affected area had to be conducted by surveyor for decision of claim of farmers, but the complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss of crop which is violation of terms and conditions of scheme. 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. The complainant has also not supplied any proof for loss or weather index report of Metrological Department of India of India in support of claim which establishes that alleged loss of crop had never occurred in the area. It is further submitted that 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/ Banks and farmers. The yield basis claims are settled by insurance company only upon receiving of yield from government agencies and completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme. The present case of complainant is not clear about nature of loss. It is further submitted that there is no privity of contract as insurance scheme has been provided to bank and consideration has also been received from bank only and as such present complaint is not maintainable. It is also submitted that complainant has not made all the government agencies as necessary party. It is further 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. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
3. Op no.2 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that amount of crop insurance premium was deducted from the account of complainant as per instructions and scheme of the Govt. and after deducting the amount of premium from the account of complainant same was remitted to the insurance company and answering op had nothing to do with any other thing in the said matter. It is further submitted that complainant at no point of time, had given any intimation about the damages to her crop. It is further submitted that answering op while remitting the amount of insurance premium to op no.1 had also forwarded the relevant documents about the crop grown in the field of complainant and thus, there was/is no negligence on the part of answering op in this regard. The answering op discharged its duty/ obligation most efficiently, properly and in legal manner. The claim about the loss to crop is to be settled by op no.1. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.3 in its separate written statement while taking certain preliminary objections submitted that op no.3 is only liable to conduct the survey of loss and to prepare the report and same has been done by op no.3, well within prescribed time period. The complainant never visited to the answering op rather op no.3 always tried to make best efforts regarding quick disposal of the every claim, but op no.3 cannot go beyond the rules and regulations decided by the Higher Authority. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as ASO on behalf of op no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainant in order to prove her complaint has furnished her affidavit Ex.PW1/A in which she has deposed and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. She has also furnished copy of certificate of the bank dated 11.1.2019 Ex.C1, copy of letter regarding entrance and confirmation of mutation Ex.C2, copy of statement of account Ex.C3, copy of detail of farmers Ex.C4, coy of jamabandi Ex.C5, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C6, copy of jamabandi Ex.C7, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C8, copy of adhar card Ex.C9, copy of girdawari Ex.C10, copy of certificate Ex.C11, copy of statement of account Ex.C12. On the other hand, OP no.3 furnished affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture Ex.R1, copy of notification Ex.R2 and copy of tabulation sheet Ex.R3. Op no.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Harsh Wadhwa, Branch Manager as Ex.RW1/A., copy of Haryana Govt. notification Ex.R4 and copy of statement of account Ex.R5. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities including two last opportunities.
8. The complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that she has got her cotton crop insured which was sown by her in her field mentioned in para no.1 of the complaint from op no.1 through op no.2 from which complainant had raised crop loan and op no.2 had deducted a sum of Rs.1780.26 on 31.7.2017 from the account of complainant. The version of complainant finds corroboration from certificate of Oriental Bank of Commerce Ex.C1 in which it has been categorically mentioned that “It is to inform that Smt. Banarsi devi w/o Madan Lal R/O village Khairekan Tehsil and distt. Sirsa was sanctioned a limit of Rs.3,60 lakh on dated 03/09/2012 as crop loan for sowing of cotton and wheat crop and the agriculture land mortgaged was 32 K 17 M situated at village Kanwarpura tehsil and Distt. Sirsa”.
9. As per averments of the complainant, the cotton crop of complainant was destroyed due to climatic condition and claim was lodged by complainant with ops for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.19,500/- per acre which has been paid to the neighbourers of the fields of complainant who had also sown crop of cotton during Kharif 2017, but however, claim of complainant was declined on the ground that op no.2 had got insured paddy crop of complainant from op no.1.
10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended and relied upon revenue record submitted by her that complainant has never sown crop of paddy in her field and never raised any crop loan for sowing crop of paddy in her field, but however, op no.2 has wrongly submitted the declaration of sowing crop of paddy and got insured same with op no.1 knowing well that she raised loan for cotton crop and same was to be got insured from op no.1 and op no.2 is responsible and liable to make compensation as per provisions of the scheme.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.2 has not denied the fact that a wrong declaration has not been made by bank officials. It is proved fact on record that complainant had sown crop of cotton in kharif 2017 for which she had raised loan from op no.2 and a sum of Rs.1780.25 was deducted on account of premium to be paid to the insurance company on behalf of complainant through op no.2. So it appears that it is the grave mistake on the part of op no.2 who while submitting the declaration to the insurance company has mentioned crop of complainant as paddy instead of cotton which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of op no.2. As such op no.2 appears to be liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the loss of crop to the complainant. We also find force from the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & Anr. Versus Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & Anr. 2015 (4) CLT 545 in which it was observed that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1) (d) Crop insurance scheme- Insurance premium debited in loan account of agriculturists by the bank by receiving service charges on premium collected from agriculturists- Damage of groundnut crops- Repudiation of claim- Deficiency in service- Complaint allowed against bank in appeal- Legality of- There was relationship of consumer and service provider between agriculturists and bank- As per clause 19 of guidelines to Financial Institutions, Financial Institutions were to be only responsible for all omissions and commissions committed by them- Prima facie, error has been committed by bank in remitting amount of premium recovered from agriculturists while sending it to insurance company in wrong name of village of complainants- Bank rightly held liable to reimburse all the losses.
12. Since the complainant had not sown crop of paddy and she has claimed compensation on account of loss of cotton crop, as such complaint qua opposite party no.1 insurance company which insured the paddy crop on the basis of declaration of op no.2 does not appear to be maintainable against op no.1 and complaint against op no.1 is dismissed. Similarly, since it was only obligation of the agricultural department to conduct survey after receiving intimation of damage and to conduct crop cutting experiment and submit their report, as such present complaint for claiming compensation from op no.3 also does not appear to be maintainable and as such complaint against op no.3 is also dismissed.
13. In view of the above, we partly allow the present complaint against opposite party no.2 and direct the opposite party no.2 to pay compensation to the complainant on the basis of report submitted by agriculture department at par with the other farmers of village Kanwarpura to whom compensation has already been paid by insurance company and same has been credited in their accounts. The bank is further directed to pay interest @7% per annum on the payable amount from the date of payment made to other farmers till its realization and further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. However, the op no.2 is at liberty to recover amount which will be paid to the complainant if same is payable to the bank under the terms and conditions of insurance contract arrived at between op no.1 and op no.2 or under any other law. The op no.2 is liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated: 10.09.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
