BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 102 of 2019
Date of Institution : 28.02.2019.
Date of Decision : 09.01.2020.
- Chainsukh, aged 36 years, 2. Mani Ram, aged 51 years, 3. Sandeep, aged 37 years, 4. Veer Singh, aged 51 years sons of Kurda Ram @ Chhotu, 5. Chandrawali, aged 66 years widow of Kurda Ram @ Chhotu, all residents of village Bajekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometell Hotel, Chandigarh, through its Manager.
- Punjab National Bank, Bajekan Branch, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
- Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. P.K. Berwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO on behalf of opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The case of complainants, in brief, is that complainants are agriculturists by profession and they own and possess agricultural lands in village Bajekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa. That complainants are having their loan accounts with op no.2 bank bearing accounts No. 1121000100525367, 1121000100520496, 1121000100525330, 1121000100525349 and 1121000100520487 respectively. The complainants availed loan facility from op no.2 bank against mortgage of their respective shares i.e. 34 Kanal 12 Marlas of Chainsukh, 34 kanals 12 marlas of Mani Ram, 23 kanals 18 marlas of Sandeep, 34 kanals 12 marlas of Mani Ram (it should be Veer Singh) and 51 kanals 16 marlas of Smt. Chandrawali complainant (as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) situated in village Bajekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa. It is further averred that op no.2 bank got insured the crop of complainants for which op no.2 deducted the premium amount of Rs. 1851-91, Rs.1851-01, Rs. 1258-13, Rs.1851-91 and Rs.1851-91 respectively for the insurance of cotton crops of kharif 2017 as per crop insurance scheme i.e. Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The complainants had disclosed the fact of sowing of cotton crop in their aforesaid land to op no.2 and accordingly, op no.2 deducted the aforesaid amounts of insurance premium from the accounts of complainants and remitted the same to op no.1 as per policy. That said cotton crop of complainant in Kharif 2017 was destroyed due to climatic conditions as crop was attacked by white fly. Due intimation was sent to the ops and agriculture department conducted survey of the fields of village Bajekan and submitted its report. The op no.1 thereafter settled the claim of other farmers of village Bajekan and also paid the insurance claim to farmers of aforesaid village at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per acre but very strangely left the complainants and did not pay any amount to them. It is further averred that complainants contacted with the officers of the ops and inquired about non payment of insurance claim but they did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. That complainant approached the ops and requested them to admit their claim and to pay compensation amount for damage of their cotton crop but they did not pay any heed and have refused to do so a week back. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties 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 Bajekan, 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 complainants or by bank of complainants. In the present complaint, complainants are 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 complainants, 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 complainants 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 complainants have 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 complainans never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of crop and thus, connected story of claim of complainants 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 complainants have 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 also 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 complainants 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 complainants have made a false, bogus and baseless story just to grab the compensation. With these averments, prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 filed separate written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that premium is deducted as per the Central Govt. scheme. The premium is deducted as per proposed crop. It is further submitted that complainants have proposed in their separate loan applications that they will sow the crop of paddy as kharif crop. They have availed the financial assistance in the shape of KCC limit as per paddy crop. The op bank has provided financial assistance to them on the viability of paddy crop. Hence, as per instructions of complainants, answering op has deducted the amount from the account of complainants for the payment of insurance premium under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna and paid the same to op no.1 for insurance of crops of paddy of complainants. It is further submitted that op bank has got insured proposed crop from op no.1 who is liable to compensate the complainant for damage of insured crop. It is further submitted that if complaiannts have changed the crop then it was their duty to inform the answering op so that he could insure the crop sown by complainants. Moreover, answering op had paid the premium of insurance to op no.1 for the insurance of paddy crop. It was their duty to visit the spot before insurance and if crop of paddy was not available on the spot, then it was their duty to refund the premium paid to them. If they have accepted the same, then it is presumed that they have insured the crop sown by complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
4. Opposite party no.3 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections as taken by op no.1. It is submitted that op no.3 is only liable to conduct survey and made its report according to the crop cutting experiment which is prescribed in the operational guidelines issued by the Government of India under PMFBY. The answering op always tried to make best efforts for welfare of the farmers, but cannot go beyond the operational guidelines issued under PMFBY and it is up to higher authorities as well as insurance company to settle the claim in question. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant, learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 as well as ASO on behalf of op no.3 and have gone through the record carefully.
7. The complainants in order to prove their complaint have furnished affidavit of Veer Singh complainant as Ex.C1 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. They have also furnished copy of jamabandi Ex.C2, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C3 and copies of pass books Ex.C4 to Ex.C7A, affidavit of Dharmpal Ex.C8, copy of pass book Ex.C9, copy of tabulation sheet Ex.C10 and affidavit of Mani Ram complainant as Ex.C11. OP no.3 produced 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 produced affidavit of Sh. Vikas Mundlia, Manager and Principal Officer as Ex.R4 and copies of applications form for agricultural credit Ex.R5 to Ex.R9 and copies of statements of accounts Ex.R10 to Ex.R15. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence.
8. The complainants have filed this complaint with the allegations that they got their cotton crop of kharif 2017 insured with op no.1 through op no.2 and have claimed compensation for the loss of cotton crop of kharif 2017. On the other hand, op no.2 bank has taken a specific plea that complainants did not get their crop of cotton insured with op no.1 through op no.2 though complainants were holding KCC accounts with op no.2 and premium was deducted by op no.2 and was paid to op no.1 for insurance of paddy crop of complainants. As per defence plea of op no.2, premium was deducted for getting crop of paddy 2017 insured which is evident from documents Ex.R5 to Ex.R9 i.e. application forms for agricultural credit produced by op no.2.
9. Learned counsel for complainants has not disputed signatures/ thumb impressions of complainants on Ex.R5 to Ex.R9 by which complainants had filled proposal at the time of taking loan that they will sow crop of paddy in kharif season. So, it appears that complainants got their paddy crop insured from op no.1 through op no.2 which deducted premium from KCC account of complainants.
10. The complainants have not placed on record any document or letter of intimation vide which they had informed op no.2 regarding change of crop from paddy to cotton. Though they have placed on record copy of khasra girdawari showing the cotton crop in the column of cultivation but however they have not placed on record any corroborative evidence in order to prove that they had sown crop of cotton and same was insured from op no.1 through op no.2.
11. In view of above discussion, it appears that complainants have failed to prove their allegations in the complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence. As such, 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:09.01.2020. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
