BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 312 of 2018
Date of Institution : 17.12.2018.
Date of Decision : 10.10.2019.
- Gujjar Ram son of Shri Punjab Ram, 2. Dev Raj, 3. Roshan Lal sons of Shri Gujjar Ram, residents of village Baruwali 1st District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ABW Towers, Unit No. 511-512, 5th Floor, M.G. Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurugram- 122001 through M.D./ authorized person.
- Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Darbi District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
- Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank, Head Office, Near Bajrang Bhawan, Delhi Road, Rohtak- 124001, Haryana through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Gulshan Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 and 3.
ORDER
The complainants have filed the present complaint alongwith an application under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking permission to file joint complaint and said application was allowed and permission to file joint complaint was granted.
2. The case of the complainants in brief is that complainant no.1 is an agriculturist by profession. He alongwith his sons Dev Raj and Roshan Lal is owner in possession of land measuring 40 kanals 9 marlas as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint which is situated in village Baruwali 1st, Tehsil and District Sirsa. That the complainant being the agriculturist obtained the KCC facilities from op no.2. It is further averred that Government of India has announced for crop insurance of the farmers under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and as per this scheme, the crop of those farmers who have availed credit card facility from the bank was insured and installment of the premium was deducted from the account of farmers by the bank directly. As per the scheme, the op no.1 had insured the crops of complainant and his sons being co-sharers and premium of the insurance of Rs.2116.62 (jointly) was deducted from the account of complainant and his sons bearing nos. 83031900012395, 83031900012401 and 83031900012368 on 31.7.2017. The kharif crops of 2017 were covered under the insurance policy. The complainant had sown Narma crops in their agricultural land and as per the said scheme, the narma crop was covered under the insurance policy. As per the policy, damages caused to the crop due to natural calamities like natural fire, lightening, hailstorm, flood, inundation and diseases etc. were/ are covered under the policy and the insurer is liable to indemnify the losses caused to the crops of the insured farmers. It is further averred that the crops of the Narma of complainants has been damaged to the extent of 100% due to natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught. Since the area where the land of complainants is situated has been notified by the State Government for the benefits of the said Yojna, the State Government directed the Agriculture Department to inspect the spot and to ascertain the damages caused to the insured crops of the farmers and to report about the same. Accordingly, the Agriculture Department visited the agricultural land of the complainants as well as other farmers and duly inspected the spot and during inspection, it was found that Kharif, 2017 (Narma crop) of the complainants has been damaged to the extent of 100% and a report in this regard has been submitted to the Agricultural Department and Agricultural Department further submitted the same to ops no.2 and 3. It is further averred that normally the farmers gains narma crop of Rs.60,000/- per acre every year and as such the complainant sustained the losses of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of damages to insured crop. That the op no.1 had to pay the insurance amount on account of damages caused to the crop of complainant under the aforesaid policy. The complainants approached to the ops and requested them to disburse the amount of compensation 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 disbursed any such amount to the complainants saying that the narma crop of complainants has never been insured by them rather they paddy crop of complainant has been insured and thus, the complainant is not entitled to compensation, whereas actually the complainant has been sowing the crop of narma since beginning and he never sown paddy crop in his agricultural land. The area in which the land of complainant falls is not a paddy area. Further premium has been deducted by op no.2 from the account of complainant qua the insurance of his narma crop and has been paid to op no.1 but op no.1 was not ready to accept the version of complainant, hence the complainant approached to op no.2 and requested them to get disbursed the amount of compensation. The op no.2 disclosed that mistakenly the crop of complainant has wrongly been mentioned as paddy crop instead of Narma 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 officials 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 reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct. The answering op never received any premium amount against the crop of complainant till cut off date in the year 2017 khariff. The complainant has lodged the claim with regards to loss of crop. The cotton crop was damaged due to windstorm and rain water, which was briefly described in clause (4) sub-section (d) in operational guidelines under PMFBY. So, the insurance company rejected the above said claim, under terms and conditions of the insurance policy according to the notification. It is further submitted that no premium or intimation ever received by the answering op till cut off date of kharif 2017 and in lack of premium amount, no insurance policy exists. 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 and all the necessary information and required documents may be collected by govt. agency/ Bank/ insurance portal etc. and will be supplied to the concerned insurance company. The complainant never supplied any documents to op no.1 regarding the claim. It is further submitted that op no.1 used to make the insurance of crop on the information supplied by the Bank and there is no direct contract in between the complainant and answering op. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Ops no.2 and 3 also filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant himself has got his paddy crop sown in the month of July to October, potato crop sown in month of October to January insured through answering op. Accordingly, the amount of premium has been debited to his loan account and has been credited to op no.1 as per norms. It is further submitted that at the time of insurance, the complainant was very much present in the Bank who authorized/ instructed the answering op for doing insurance of his crops as mentioned in the application which is duly signed by him. Accordingly, the answering op applied to op no.1 for insurance of the crops as told by complainant which crops are also mentioned in the application form. On the instructions of complainant, the answering op has debited the amount of premium from the account of complainant and sent the same to op no.1 for insurance of the crops of complainant. It is further submitted that cotton/ narma crop of complainant was never insured and no premium on account of insurance of cotton/narma crop was ever debited by the answering op. If the complainant has sown cotton/ narma crop in his field, then the complainant has himself violated the terms and conditions of loan documents as well as insurance policy. At the time of insurance of crops of complainant, he has applied for insurance for paddy and potato crops only. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainants in order to prove their case have furnished affidavit of Gujjar Ram complainant as Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. They have also furnished copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 as Ex.C1, khasra girdawari Ex.C2, application moved to C.M. Haryana Ex.C3, copies of pass books Ex.C4 to Ex.C6, letter dated 14.1.2019 Ex.C7 and copy of pass book Ex.C8. On the other hand, ops no.2 and 3 produced affidavit of Sh. Mahavir Prasad, Manager as Ex.R1, copies of account ledger inqury Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 and copies of forms Ex.R5 to Ex.R7. Op no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Nishant Gera Manager Legal as Ex.R8.
8. From the evidence of the parties, it is proved fact on record that complainant no.1 Gujjar Ram alongwith his sons Dev Raj and Roshan Lal complainants no.2 and 3 is owner in possession of land measuring 40 kanal 9 marlas as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint and they are holding account numbers/ kissan credit cards with ops no.2 and 3. A total sum of Rs.2116.62 from the accounts of complainants was deducted by the bank on 31.7.2017 to get the kharif crop of 2017 of complainants insured from op no.1. As per averments made in the complaint, the complainants had sown narma crop in their agricultural land and due to natural calamities i.e. diseases and draught, the crop of complainants was damaged and insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss caused to the insured as per provisions of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Though, the complainants have tendered in evidence copy of khasra girdawari as Ex.C2 in which crop of cotton has been recorded by Halqa Patwari, but however, while making declaration before the bank in order to get cash credit limit of loan, the complainants have shown crop of paddy and potato which is evident from the copies of forms dated 2.9.2016 Ex.R5 to Ex.R7. On the basis of these declaration, the bank op no.2 had got insured the paddy crop of complainants for the kharif 2017 by making payment of premium to the insurance company. It appears from the evidence of parties that complainants never got their crop of cotton insured from op no.1 through op no.2. As such, complainants do not appear to be entitled for compensation on account of loss of cotton crop. The complainants have failed to prove their allegations by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and as such the present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. 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 President,
Dated: 10.10.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
