BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 474 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 16.08.2019.
Date of Decision : 31.05.2022.
- Kamlesh Kumar, aged 29 years, son of Shri Mahabir,
- Vinod Kumar, aged about 27 years, son of Shri Mahabir,
- Mahabir son of Dhana Ram, all residents of village Ramgarh, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. Mobile No. 99962-43333.
……Complainants.
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. HDFC Bank, Branch Opposite Nirankari Bhawan, Mandi Dabwali, 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
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA………………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. V.P. Rar, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainants have 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 complainants is that complainants are agriculturists having agricultural land (in joint share) comprised in Khewat No. 409, Khatauni No. 562, Khewat No.411 Khatauni No. 564, Khewat No. 412 Khatauni No. 565 situated in village Kaluana, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 and they are wholly dependent upon agricultural income. That they are having their joint account bearing No.50200018418983 with op no.2. It is further averred that as per scheme of Central Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna, the crops sown in the land of complainants was insured with op no.1 against loss, damages of crop due to natural causes and accordingly an amount of Rs.14131.20 was deducted on 31.07.2017 as premium by OP no.2 from the account of complainants and amount was paid to op no.1 for the insurance of crops. That complainants had sown crop of cotton in about 28 acres of land in year 2017 which was damaged due to disaster of white bees and other natural calamities and therefore, complainants are entitled to insurance amount of Rs.8,40,000/- approximately at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre. It is further averred that later on complainants came to know that said amount of Rs.14131.20 has been credited in the account of complainants on 02.08.2017 without consent or intimation to the complainants and no satisfactory reply was given by ops to the complainants in this regard. In this way, they have been deprived of their legally entitled amount of insurance claim and ops have caused mental agony and harassment to the complainants. The complainant approached and requested the ops repeatedly to release the insurance claim but all in vain. It is further averred that complainants have made their all best efforts to get insurance claim for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 but ops are adamant not to release the claim amount to the complainants. Hence, this complaint.
3. 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 Kaluana, Tehsil Dabwali 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 complainants or by bank of complainants. In the present complaint, complainants are 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 farmers has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers. If any mistake is done by bank of complainants, 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 complainants 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 complainants have 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 complainants never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of crop and thus, connected story of claim of complainants 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 taken. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and above said pleas are also reiterated. It is submitted that claim of complainants 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 scheme and complainant has made a false, bogus and baseless story just to grab the compensation. With these averments, prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 filed reply submitting therein that as per the term of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY scheme), which was launched by Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on 13.2.2016, for the farmers who have sought crop loan from any Financial Institutions, it was mandatory for the Banks to insure all the borrowers under the scheme. The premium of the insurance was to be deducted from the account of borrower and was to be paid to the op no.1 insurance company by the bank. In the present case, the bank has debited the premium amount from the account of complainants as insurance premium for Kharif, 2017. As per clause 6.3.1 of revised operational guidelines of PMFBY, the adhar card has been made mandatory for availing crop insurance from Kharif, 2017 season onward. The one of the officials of ICICI Lombard, Shri Deepak Gupta also informed the answering op in clarification that as per newly issued communication from Ministry of Agriculture Farmer Welfare, Adhar Card was mandatory for enrolment for all the farmers. As such detail regarding some accounts could not be uploaded on the portal of the insurance company due to non availability of the adhar card and the amount debited in their account was not remitted to the insurance company op no.1 and was kept in the sundry account.
5. It is further submitted that complainants are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present complaint against answering op. In fact, at the time of sanction of loan, the complainants had executed a declaration and undertaking that “As per your bank policy crop insurance is a pre-condition. However, they are not interested in incurring expenditure on crop insurance premium. I/We undertake entire responsibility for repayment of the crop loan availed from your bank alongwith interest even if the crops are failed due to nature calamities or for any other reasons”. It is further submitted that after debit of amount of premium in the account of complainants, message was sent to complainants regarding the debit of the amount and on receipt of the message, complainants alongwith office bearer of Kisan Union visited the Bank premises on 2.8.2017 and shown their grievance regarding transfer of amount for insurance of crops as they had not authorized the bank to get their crop insured. They were advised to deposit adhar card with the Bank as insurance was necessary on the instructions from Govt. of India, but they refused to get the crop insured, as such the premium amount was remitted back in their account. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. The complainants have tendered affidavit of complainant Kamlesh Kumar as Ex.C1, copy of statement of account of complainants Ex.C2, copy of jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C3 and copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C4.
7. On the other hand, Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager as Ex.RW1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.R1 and copies of authorization/ declaration and undertakings Ex.R2 & Ex.R3.
8. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
10. The record reveals that complainants in order to prove their case have furnished affidavit of complainant Kamlesh Kumar Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. The complainants have 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.14,131.20 was deducted by op no.2 bank for insuring the Kharif crop of 2017 of complainants and same also reveals that on 2.8.2017 i.e. just within two days, the premium amount of Rs.14.131.20 deducted by op no.2 bank on 31.7.2017 from the account of complainants was remitted back in their account. The complainants have alleged that due to negligence of op bank, their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 could not be insured with the insurance company and as such the op bank is liable to pay the claim amount for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. But the complainants have not placed on record any document/ report to prove the damage to their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. Further more, op no.2 bank has taken a specific stand that after deduction of premium from the account of complainants on 31.7.2017 for insuring their crop of Kharif, 2017, the complainants alongwith office bearer of Kisan Union personally visited the bank and declared that they are not interested in incurring expenditure on crop insurance premium and showed their grievance regarding transfer of amount for insurance of crop. Accordingly, premium amount deducted on 31.7.2017 was remitted back in their account on 2.8.2017 i.e. just within two days at the behest of complainants and as such their crop of Kharif, 2017 was not insured. In this regard, op bank has also placed on file declaration and undertakings given by complainants as Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.
11. Since, complainants themselves visited the bank and have given in writing as per Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 that they do not want to get their crop insured from insurance company and undertook to repay the loan amount even in case their crops are damaged due to natural calamities or for any other reason, so now complainants are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. The premium amount was deducted on 31.7.2017 for insurance of crop of complainants but as complainants raised objection for deduction of premium amount from their account, so same was returned back in their account on 2.8.2017 i.e. just within two days, therefore, it cannot be said that op bank is at fault for not insuring the crop of complainants. Moreover, as mentioned above, there is nothing to file to prove the damage to the crop of complainants of Kharif, 2017. So, complaint of the complainants 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:31.05.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
