BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 07 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 04.01.2019.
Date of Decision : 15.09.2022.
Hari Krishan Lal, aged 53 years son of Jhanda Ram, resident of village Bajekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
Versus.
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. 4th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh through its Manager.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd., Sirsa Branch, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
...…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. P.K. Berwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is agriculturist having agricultural land measuring 82 kanala 17 marlas (as detailed in para no.1 of complaint) situated in village Bajekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013. That complainant has availed crop loan facility from op no.2 bank through his loan account bearing No. 14138040007200. It is further averred that as per notification/ scheme of Central Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna, the crops sown in the land of complainant were being insured with op no.1 by op no.2 bank against loss, damages of crop due to natural calamities. The op no.2 deducted premium amount of Rs.12,709/- for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 with op no.1. That cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2016 was destroyed due to climatic conditions and Agrticulture Department submitted its report in this regard. The op no.1 thereafter, settled the claim of other farmers of village Bajekan and paid insurance claim to farmers of village at the rate of Rs.22,000/- but very strangely left the complainant and did not pay any amount to him. It is further averred that complainant contacted with the officers of ops and inquired about non payment of his insurance claim but they did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount for the damage of his cotton crop in 82 kanals 17 marlas at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per acre alongwith interest and is also entitled to compensation and litigation expenses from ops. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed reply 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 terms and conditions of insurance policy. 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 reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding non serving of prior notice, estoppal, maintainability, cause of action, concealment of true and material facts, jurisdiction, no consumer dispute, complaint is hopelessly time barred and complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that as a matter of fact the answering op earlier has insured the crops of complainant with op no.1. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.12,709/- on account of insurance premium was transferred from the account of the complainant to op no.1 on 31.07.2017 but on 11.08.2017 the complainant visited the bank premises. He was very much annoyed and he asked official/ Incharge of the Bank why he has debited the insurance premium in his account because he has not authorized him to get his crop insured and transfer any amount on account of insurance premium to any insurance company. On the asking of complainant, answering op appraised the facts of the RBI as well as Government of India instructions to the complainant that insurance of crop is mandatory but all in vain. Thereafter, he categorically asked the answering op to get the insurance of the crop of complainant cancelled immediately and reverse the amount of premium to his account, failing which answering op shall face the consequences. Keeping in view the circumstances and threat given by complainant, the answering op got cancelled insurance proposal application and reversed the amount of premium charged from the complainant in his presence. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.3 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections as taken by op no.1. It is submitted that op no.3 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. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of statement of account Ex.C2, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C3, khasra girdawari Ex.C4.
7. On the other hand, Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa Ex.R1, notification dated 13.06.2017 Ex.R2, village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim Ex.R3. OP no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Manager Law as Ex.R4, copies of authorization/ declaration and undertakings Ex.R5 and Ex.R6 and copy of statement of account 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.3 and have gone through the case file carefully.
10. The record reveals that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. The complainant has also placed on file copy of statement of account Ex.C2, the perusal of which reveals that on 31.7.2017, premium amount of Rs.12,709.80 was deducted by op no.2 bank for insuring the Kharif crop of 2017 of complainant and same also reveals that on 11.8.2017 i.e. just within eleven days, the premium amount of Rs.12,709.80 deducted by op no.2 bank on 31.7.2017 from the account of complainant was remitted back in his account. In this regard, op no.2 bank has taken a specific stand that after deduction of premium from the account of complainant on 31.7.2017 for insuring his crop of Kharif, 2017, on 11.8.2017 the complainant visited the bank premises and he was very much annoyed. He asked official/ Incharge of the bank why he has debited the insurance premium in his account because has not authorized him to get his crop insured and to transfer any amount on account of insurance premium to any insurance company. The op no.2 has also asserted that thereafter complainant asked the answering op to get the insurance of crop of complainant cancelled immediately and reversed the amount of premium to his account, failing which the answering op shall face consequences and in view of threat given by complainant, the answering op got cancelled insurance proposal application and reversed the amount of premium charged from complainant in his presence and as such his crop of Kharif, 2017 was not insured. In this regard, op no.2 bank has also placed on file declaration and undertaking given by complainant as Ex.R5 and Ex.R6.
11. Since, complainant himself visited the bank and objected for deduction of premium for insurance of his crop and has already given in writing as per Ex.R5 and Ex.R6 that he does not want to get his crop insured from insurance company and undertook to repay the loan amount even in case his crops are damaged due to natural calamities or for any other reason, so now complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. The premium amount was deducted on 31.7.2017 for insurance of crop of complainant but as complainant raised objection for deduction of premium amount from his account, so same was returned back in his account on 11.8.2017 i.e. just within eleven days, therefore, it cannot be said that op no.2 bank is at fault for not insuring the crop of complainant. Since, crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 was not insured, therefore, ops are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. So, complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal.
12. In view of our above discussion, there is no 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 free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 15.09.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
