BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 110 of 2019
Date of Institution : 06.03.2019.
Date of Decision : 28.11.2019.
Jagdish aged about 55 years son of Sh. Kurda, resident of village Ghoranwali, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- ICICI Lombard, 1st Floor, Dharam Satya, State Bank of India (ADB) Branch, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
- Union Bank of India, Near Old Bus Stand, Rania, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anjani Kumar Gupta, 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 case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and is owner in possession of land measuring 39 kanals 11 marlas (as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) situated in village Ghoranwali, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. The complainant sown cotton and gawar crops in May, 2017 in his above mentioned land. That complainant raised crop loan under Kissan Credit Limit facility from op no.2 vide rapat no.1979 TSC dated 29.7.2015, for limit of Rs.5,00,000/- of his land measuring 39 kanals 11 marlas and as per policy of the Government, the op no.2 got insured the Narma crop with op no.1 for the kharif 2017. The op no.2 debited a sum of Rs.2145/- on 29.7.2017 in the account of complainant as crops insurance premium for the sum assured and thus, the kapas, gawar and arand crops of kharif, 2017 was insured by op no.2 with op no.1. It is further averred that said crops of kharif 2017 sown by complainant in his above said land were destroyed due to climate conditions. The Agriculture Department surveyed the agriculture fields of village Ghoranwali and submitted its report to the ops. The op no.1, thereafter settled the claim of the farmer of village Ghoranwali but very strangely declined to pay insurance claim to the complainant and few other farmers of village Ghoranwali and did not pay any amount to them as compensation. It is further averred that they contacted the officers of op no.1 in this regard where upon complainant was told that compensation has been paid to those farmers who have sown kapas, gawar and arand crops and not to other farmers and complainant who have sown paddy crops and not sown kapas, gawar and arand crops in their agriculture land. The complainant apprised the officer of op no.1 that he has sown kapas, gawar and arand crops and not paddy crops and also assured the op no.1 that in village Ghoranwali only kapas, gawar and arand crops are sown and paddy crop is not sown even in single killa. The complainant also showed khasra girawari to op no.1 but to no effect rather they stated that op no.2 bank has provided their detail of insurance of paddy crop and thereby op no.1 refused to entertain the claim of complainant. That complainant raised loan from op no.2 and got insured his kapas, gawar and arnd crops of 2017 with op no.1 and no paddy crop was ever insured in village Ghoranwali and this is negligence on the part of op no.2 as op no.2 has submitted a wrong report to op no.1 and same led to the losses to the complainant without his fault. It is further averred that in this manner, both the ops have committed gross deficiency in services towards the complainant. 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 in village Goriwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa 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 complainant himself or by bank of complainant. In the present complaint, complainant is 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 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/ Bank and farmers. But instead of filing complaint or grievance before DAC & FW department, the complainant has 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 complainant 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 complainant has 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. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and above said pleas are also reiterated. It is submitted that claim of complainant 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 same and complainant has made a false, bogus and baseless story just to grab the compensation. With these averments, prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 filed separate reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that at the time of advance 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 insurance of his crops. On the request of complainant, the answering op debited a sum of Rs.2145/- on 29.7.2017 on account of insurance premium for the crops of complainant and transferred the same to op no.1 where upon op no.1 insured the paddy crop of complainant. The complainant never get his kapas, gawar and arand crop insured from op no.1. It is further submitted that complainant himself got kapas crop sown in the month of June to October, arand crop in the month of November to April whereas he declared crops paddy and wheat and which were got insured through answering op. Hence, he himself has violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement as well as insurance policy and is not entitled to any compensation as well as any interest. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished affidavit of Sh. Satbir Singh, Assistant Statistical Officer, office of DDA, Sirsa as Ex.CW1/A who has proved copy of village wise tabulation sheet as Ex.C1, document regarding threshold yield and average yield as Ex.C2, copy of formula regarding assessment Ex.C3, copy of notification Ex.C4. The complainant has also furnished his affidavit Ex.CW2/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also tendered copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 as Ex.C5, copy of mutation Ex.C6, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C7, copy of statement of account as Ex.C8, copy of adhar card Ex.C9, copy of crop insurance detail Ex.C10 and copy of application Ex.C11.
7. On the other hand, op no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex.R1 and copy of declaration form Ex.R2 and copy of statement of account as Ex.R3. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence.
8. As per allegations of complainant, he had sown crop of kapas and gawar in his agricultural land measuring 39 kanals 11 marlas in the year 2017 and placed on record copy of jamabandi and copy of khasra girdawari as Ex. C5 and Ex.C7 in support of his claim, but however, claim of complainant for compensation on account of damage of crop has been declined by op no.1 on the ground that complainant had made declaration of paddy crop while taking loan from op no.2. There is specific plea of op no.2 that complainant had taken crop loan from op no.2 and made declaration for the crop of paddy and wheat and on the basis of this declaration of complainant, the op no.2 had deducted the amount of premium from the KCC account of complainant sent the same to the insurance company op no.1. The complainant has though relied upon copy of khasra girdawari showing his crop of cotton and gawar during Kharif 2017, but however, complainant has not denied that he has not made declaration of crop to op no.2. The op no.2 has taken the plea that cotton crop of complainant was not insured with op no.1. The op no.2 has taken specific plea that complainant had taken crop loan from op no.2 against mortgage of his agricultural land. At the time of advancement of loan, complainant had declared schedule of crops sown in his fields i.e. June to October paddy crop and November to April wheat crop and he made request for insurance of his crops. Accordingly, on the request of complainant, the op no.2 debited a sum of Rs.2145/- on 29.7.2017 on account of insurance premium and transferred the same to op no.1 where upon op no.1 insured the paddy crop of complainant. In order to prove their plea, Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Branch Manager has furnished his affidavit Ex.R1 in which he has reiterated averments made in the reply and also deposed qua taking of crop loan for paddy and wheat crops by complainant and also deposed that they deducted premium of Rs.2145/- for insurance of crop of paddy which was transferred to op no.1. In order to prove their plea further bank has relied upon Ex.R2 declaration qua the paddy crop which bears the signatures of the complainant. So, it is proved on record that complainant had taken crop loan for sowing crop of paddy which was got insured by op no.2 from op no.1. It is further proved that complainant never gave any intimation to the ops qua the change of crop nor he ever made any request to the ops no.1 and 2 to inspect the standing crop. So, it is proved on record that cotton crop of complainant was never got insured from op no.1.
9. In view of above discussion, it appears that complainant has failed to prove his allegations in the complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence. As such, 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 in open Forum. President,
Dated:28.11.2019. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
