BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 440 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 07.08.2019.
Date of Decision : 27.02.2023.
Girdhari Lal, aged about 51 years son of Shri Sahab Ram, resident of village Bacher, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. Mobile No. 98126-42066/ 94665-37032.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. 4th Floor, the Statement Building, Plot No. 149, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh- 160002 through its Manager.
2. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Talwara Khurd, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Ved Parkash, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017.
2. The complainant has alleged that he is an agriculturist having his agricultural land comprised in Khewat No.314, Khatauni No. 350 situated in village Bacher, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa so recorded in the revenue record as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017. He is wholly dependent upon the agricultural income in all respects. The complainant is having his account no. 16895115004318 with op no.2. It is further averred as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, on 31.07.2017 op no.2 bank deducted a sum of Rs.1592.11 from the above bank account of complainant against the premium for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 against any damage of his crop and said amount was paid to op no.1 insurance company. That complainant sown crop of cotton in about three acres of his land which was damaged due to disaster of white bees and other natural calamities and complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- approximately at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre. It is further averred that op no.2 in its record has shown paddy crop due to clerical/ intentional mistake and as a result of this discrepancy, the ops have refused to pay insurance claim to the complainant. It is further averred that to get his insurance claim the complainant submitted an application to op no.2 but to no effect and despite his all efforts to get the record of bank/ insurance company corrected, the ops are adamant not to admit their mistake and correct the concerned record and the act and conduct of the ops amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled to the insurance claim alongwith interest besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed its written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage of alleged loss, insurance company cannot be questioned for proposal related disputes, not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, non intimation, 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 etc. It is also submitted that in the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for cotton crop but the 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 and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that no intimation ever received regarding the loss of crop from the complainant as well as any other agencies and version of complainant that he approached to the officers of op no.1 is false one. However, the claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss occurred due to Rains but same is not leading to Inundation, which is covered for loss under the scheme and complainant has made a false, bogus and baseless story just to grab the compensation. It is also 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 & 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. But instead of filing complaint or grievance before DAC & FW department, the complainant has approached this Forum with bad intention by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme and thus, present complaint cannot be adjudicated before this Forum in absence of filing of complaint before appropriate agency by the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has raised a loan of Rs.3,92,000/- against mortgage of his agriculture land. That at the time of advancement of loan the complainant has declared the schedule of crops sown in his fields i.e. June to October paddy crop and November to April wheat crop. Accordingly he requested the answering op for the insurance of his crops. On the request of the complainant, the answering op debited a sum of Rs.1592.11 on 31.07.2017 on account of insurance premium for the crops of the complainant and transferred the same to the account of op no.1, where upon the op no.1 insured the paddy and wheat crop of the complainant. It is further submitted that it is wrong to suggest that any crop i.e. cotton crop has ever been declared to be sown by the complainant in his field and was never insured with op no.1. It is further submitted that at the time of advancement of loan as well as insurance of his crops, the complainant has not disclosed that he has sown cotton crop in his field rather he disclosed the sown crop to be paddy, accordingly paddy crop was insured. If the complainant has sown cotton crop in his field, he himself has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrongly and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.
6. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar, Manager as Ex.R1 and copies of documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4. OP no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing opportunities.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. The complainant has claimed insurance claim amount for the damage of his insured crop of Kharif, 2017. According to complainant as he had sown cotton crop in his agricultural land which was duly got insured by op no.2 bank with insurance company by paying requisite premium amount and as insured crop was damaged, therefore, he is entitled to insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop. However, in the application for agriculture loan Ex.R3 submitted by him for availing loan facility from op no.2 bank, the complainant proposed that he will sow rice i.e. paddy crop in Kharif and wheat in Rabi season and accordingly loan was granted to him by the bank at the viability of paddy crop also. Thereafter, if complainant has changed the crop of cotton from paddy crop, then he should have informed the op no.2 bank so that his cotton crop could be insured. Since cotton crop of complainant was not got insured by op no.2 bank nor any intimation qua change of pattern of crop was ever given by complainant to op no.2 bank, it appears that complainant is not entitled for loss of cotton crop which was not duly insured with insurance company and for which premium was not deducted by op bank. Since the loan amount was taken by complainant for paddy crop and no intimation regarding change of crop by him has been given to the op no.2 bank, therefore, complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct.
9. In view of 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: Member President,
Dated: 27.02.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
