BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 574 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 25.09.2019.
Date of Decision : 15.09.2022.
Gokal Ram aged about 57 years son of Shri Mani Ram, resident of village Jodhkan, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Plot No. 149, Industrial Area, Chandigarh- 150002 insurer of crop.
2. Axis Bank, Ward No.17, Friends Colony, Mandi Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa through its authority person/ branch manager.
3. Axis Bank, Near Sangwan Chowk, Dabwali Road, Sirsa through its authorized person/ branch manager.
4. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa through its authorized person.
...…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
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Dushyant Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.4.
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 brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is an agriculturist having total land measuring 82 kanals 6 marlas (as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) situated in village Jodhkan, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa. The complainant obtained KCC facility from op no.2 to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/- vide revenue record entry no. 2705 dated 22.12.2014. The said account was transferred by op no.2 to op no.3. The op no.2 bank deducted premium amount of Rs.4461.60 on 29.07.2017 from account of complainant for insuring crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 with op no.1 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The complainant further alleged that complainant sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 which was damaged to the extent of 100% due to unnatural climates, pests/ diseases, flood rain etc. and as their area has been notified by State Government, the State Government directed the op no.4 to inspect the spot and to ascertain the damages caused to the insured crops of the farmers and to submit report. Accordingly, op no.4 visited the agricultural land of complainant as well as other agriculturists and duly inspected the spot and found that cotton crop of complainant of 2017 has been damaged to the extent of 100% and a report in this regard has been submitted to higher authorities and ops no.1 to 3. The complainant suffered loss of Rs.6,50,000/- on account of damages to the insured crop and op no.1 had to pay the insurance amount. The complainant approached to the ops and requested them to disburse the amount of compensation for the losses suffered by him but the ops kept on lingering the matter on one false pretext or the other and now about a week ago, the ops have refused to disburse any such amount saying that cotton crop of complainant has never been insured by them rather the paddy crop of complainant has been insured and thus, he is not entitled to the compensation whereas actually, the complainant has been sowing crop of cotton in his land since beginning. He has never sown paddy crop in his land and the area in which land of complainant falls is not paddy area on account of which none of the farmers sown the crop of paddy. It is further averred that premium has been deducted by op no.2 from the account of complainant qua the insurance of his cotton crop and has been paid to op no.1 but op no.1 was not ready to accept the version of complainant. The complainant also approached to op no.2 in this regard whereupon op no.2 disclosed that due to mistake crop of complainant has been wrongly mentioned as paddy crop instead of cotton crop in the proposal form sent to op no.1 by op no.2 alongwith the premium and they assured that said mistake would be got rectified by them and amount of compensation shall be disbursed to the complainant at the earliest. Since then complainant has been making rounds to the offices of the ops but they are avoiding the requests of complainant and now about two days ago they have refused to admit the claim of complainant. 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 of village Jodhkan, Tehsil and District Sirsa 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. Ops no.2 and 3 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no cause of action, no consumer dispute, suppression of true and material facts, and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has proposed in his loan application that he will sow crop of paddy in Kharif season vide loan application dated 11.11.2014. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.4461/- debited in the account of complainant on 29.07.2017 and was transferred to op no.1 for insurance of kharif crop of complainant as proposed by him in his loan application. The answering op has provided him facility of cash credit on the viability of paddy crop. If he has changed the crop, then it was his duty to inform the ops. It is further submitted that answering ops have paid the premium to the insurance company for insurance of proposed crop and insurance company has not raised any objection and accepted the premium for insurance of crop of complainant. Hence, it is presumed that the crops of complainant have been fully insured and therefore, insurance company is liable to compensate the complainant regarding any loss caused to him. That if insurance company has not insured the crop of complainant, then it was their duty to refund the amount of insurance premium. In case they have not refunded the premium, it means that they have accepted the premium and are liable to compensate the complainant and the matter of claim etc. is between insurance company and farmer. It was also duty of the insurance company to verify the particulars of farmer and crop etc. as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department notification dated 30.3.2018. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.4 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections as taken by op no.1. It is submitted that op no.4 is only liable to conduct crop cutting experience and to make report according to the CCE’s as per operational guidelines issued by the Government of India under PMFBY. The yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme, which have already been given by op no.3 within specific time period. Remaining contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copies of documents i.e. letter of the bank Ex.C1, jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C2, account ledger inquiry Ex.C3, khasra girdawari Ex.C4.
7. On the other hand, op no.4 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture Ex.R1, Haryana Government notification dated 13.06.2017 Ex.R2, village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim Ex.R3. OPs no.2 and 3 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Saini, Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R4, copy of application form for credit facility Ex.R5 and copies of statements of accounts Ex.R6 and Ex.R7.
8. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.4 and have perused the case file carefully.
10. 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 bank with op no.1 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 form for credit facility Ex.R5 submitted by him for availing KCC limit from op sno.2 and 3 bank, the complainant proposed that he will sow paddy crop in Kharif and accordingly KCC limit was granted to him by the bank. Thereafter, if complainant has changed the crop of cotton from paddy crop, then he should have informed the ops bank so that his cotton crop could be insured. The complainant himself has placed on file copy of the letter of the bank dated 02.08.2019 Ex.C1 written to the complainant in which the bank has informed to the complainant that bank has not received any request from his side for change in cropping pattern. The PMFBY premium correctly debited for the crop of paddy in Kharif season, 2017. Since cotton crop of complainant was not got insured by op bank nor any intimation qua change of pattern of crop was ever given by complainant to op 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 ops bank, therefore, complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct.
11. 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 Member President,
Dated: 15.09.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
