BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 323 of 2019
Date of Institution : 20.06.2019.
Date of Decision : 18.02.2020.
- Dunger Ram aged about 71 years, 2. Krishan Kumar aged about 62 years sons of Sh. Bhani Ram, both residents of village Arniawali, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Hometell Hotel, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.
- Punjab National Bank, Chandni Chowk, Sirsa, Teh. and Distt. Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
- Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Tehsil and 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. D.L. Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, 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 and their agriculture land is situated in village Rangri Khera, Tehsil and District Sirsa. That complainants are owners in possession in equal share of land measuring 43 Kanals 8 7 sarsai i.e. 50/165 shares of land measuring 143 Kanals 7 Marlas (as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) situated in village Rangri Khera, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The complainants had sown cotton and gawar crops in May, 2017 in their above mentioned land. That complainants raised crop loan under Kissan Credit Limit facility from opposite party no.2, vide TSC Rapat No. 4196 dated 12.1.2009 for limit of Rs.1,00,000/- of their land measuring 26 kanals 6 marlas and as per the policy of Government, the op no.2 got insured the cotton crop of three acres with op no.1 for Kharif, 2017 and op no.2 debited a sum of Rs.1787-85 on 29.7.2017 in the account of complainants as crop insurance premium. Thus, the cotton crop of kharif, 2017 was got insured by op no.2 with op no.1. It is further averred that said cotton crop of 2017 sown by complainants in their agriculture land measuring 26 kanals 6 marlas was destroyed due to climate conditions. The op no.2 conducted survey of the agriculture fields of village Rangri Khera and submitted its report to ops no.1 and 2. The op no.1 thereafter settled the claim of the farmers of village Rangri Khera, but very strangely declined to pay the insurance claim to the complainants and few other farmers of that village. That complainants and other farmers of village Rangri Khera contacted the officers of op no.1 and inquired about non payment of their insurance claim but they refused to entertain the claim of complainants. That in this manner, the ops have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainants and have caused unnecessary harassment. 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 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 complainant, 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 complainants never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of crop and thus, connected story of claim of complainant 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. Opposite party no.2 filed reply submitting therein that as per the term of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY scheme), which was launched by Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on 13.2.2016, for the farmers who have sought crop loan by any Financial Institutions, it was mandatory for the Banks to insure all the borrowers under the scheme. The premium of the insurance was to be deducted from the account and was to be paid to op no.1 insurance company by the bank. In the present case, the bank has debited the amount of insurance premium from the account of complainant and has credited the same to the account of op no.1 as premium of insurance. All the information required by op no.1 was sent to the insurance company as per rules. The op no.1 has never informed the complainant or the Bank regarding any discrepancy in the record or information sent by the bank. Till date, the answering op has no knowledge that on what ground, the claim has been rejected by the company. Remaining contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Opposite party no.3 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections as taken by op no.1. It is submitted that yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only and completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by answering op within specific time period as prescribed in the operational guidelines of scheme.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO on behalf of op no.3 and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. The complainants in order to prove their complaint have furnished affidavit of Sh. Dunger Ram complainant as Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. They have also furnished copy of jamabandi Ex.C1, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C2, copy of statement of account Ex.C4, copy of detail of farmer Ex.C5, parchi Ex.C6 and copies of adhar cards Ex.C7, Ex.C8. On the other hand, op no.3 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture as Ex.R1, copy of notification Ex.R2 and copy of tabulation sheet Ex.R3. Op no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Sardari Lal, Branch Manager as Ex.R4 and detail Ex.R5. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence.
8. It is proved on record that complainants are owners in possession of land measuring 43 Kanals 8 7 sarsai as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint. As per allegations of complainants, they have raised crop loan under Kissan Credit Limit facility from op no.2 and the limit of their loan is Rs.1,00,000/- against their land measuring 26 kanals 6 marlas and as per policy of the Government for insurance of crops of loanee farmers, the op no.2 got insured the cotton crop of three acres of complainants of Kharif, 2017 with op no.1 and debited a sum of Rs.1787.85 on 29.7.2017 in the account of complainants and said amount was paid to op no.1 as insurance premium for insurance of their cotton crop of kharif, 2017. There are further allegations of complainants that cotton crop of complainants was damaged and claim was lodged but same was not paid. The perusal of evidence of complainants reveals that complainants have furnished affidavit of Dunger Ram complainant as Ex.CW1/A and copies of above said documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8. From the copy of statement of account Ex.C4, it is evident that on 29.7.2017 an amount of Rs.1787.85 was deducted from the joint KCC account of complainants by op bank as premium for insurance of their cotton crop for the kharif, 2017 and same was transferred to the account of op no.1. The op no.2 has also furnished affidavit of Sh. Sardari Lal, Branch Manager as Ex.R4 in which he has deposed that bank has debited the amount of insurance premium from the account of complainants and has credited the same to the account of op no.1 as premium of the insurance. Ex.R5 is the detail of the crop which was got insured by bank from op no.1, but however, op no.1 insurance company has not led any evidence. So, it is proved on record that complainants have got insured their crop of cotton of kharif, 2017 from op no.1 through op no.2 bank. It is also proved from tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during Kharif 2017 Ex.R3 produced by op no.3 that farmers of village Rangri Khera received claim under the scheme for the damage to the cotton crop of kharif 2017 as average yield of the village was less than threshold yield. So, the complainants are also entitled to the claim amount for the damage of their cotton crop of kharif, 2017 from the insurance company op no.1 at par with other farmers of village Rangri Khera who have get compensation amount. However, ops no.2 and 3 have discharged their duties and there is no deficiency in service on their part towards the complainants and as such complaint against ops no.2 and 3 stands dismissed.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint against opposite party no.1 and direct the opposite party no.1 to settle and pay the claim of complainants at par with other farmers of village Rangri Khera who have been paid compensation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainants will be entitled to interest @7% per annum on the claim amount from the date of order till actual payment. We further direct op no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants. 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:18.02.2020. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
