BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 347 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 01.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 05.04.2022.
1. Mange Ram aged 51 years, 2. Surender aged 46 years, both sons of Ram Murti, resident of village Gigorani, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, ICICI Lombard, 414,Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhivinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025.
2. HDFC Bank Limited through its Manager, Branch SRB Building Janta Bhawan Road JPO Sirsa, District Sirsa (HR).
...…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.
Present: Sh. Anil Kumar, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, 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) on the averments that complainants are residents of village Gigorani, District Sirsa and are farmers by profession. They are Kisan Credit Card holders in HDFC Bank i.e. op no.2 having KCC accounts Nos. 50200004157165 and 50200004157738 respectively. That complainants are having 28 acres 6 kanals of agricultural land in village Gigorani (as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) as per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012. It is further averred that as per notification of Government of India, all the Kisan Credit Card account holders are required to get their crop insured through their respective banker where they are maintaining their KCC account. Accordingly, op no.2 bank deducted premium amount of Rs.8045.40 on 31.7.2017 from the KCC account of complainant Mange Ram and also deducted an amount of Rs.8045.40 on 31.7.2017 from KCC account of complainant Surender as premium for insurance of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. That in this way, the complainants got insured their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 with op no.1 through op no.2 but to the surprise of complainants, the premium amount deducted from the account of complainants by op no.2 was deposited back in the accounts on 11.8.2017. It is further averred that premium for insurance of their crop was deducted by op no.2 from their accounts on the cutoff date of deposition of premium and when complainants confirmed from op no.2 regarding their insurance premium, they were told that their premiums have been deposited with op no.1, but the amount was returned back in the account of complainants without any intimation to them and as a result of which, the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainants was not insured with op no.1. That on enquiry, op no.2 told them that op no.1 has not accepted the premium for insurance of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and were not able to explain the reason why the premium were not deposited with op no.1. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainants of Kharif, 2017 season was damaged and other farmers of village Gigorani and Jasnia, District Sirsa having lands in these villages have received insurance claim against the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 season at the rate of Rs.12,300/- but the complainants did not get any insurance claim. It is further averred that when complainants enquired from the officials of insurance company, they came to know that op no.2 deposited insurance premium on time with op no.1. That complainants approached the ops with the requests to pay the insurance claim for the damage of their cotton crop but every time they were informed that they were not liable to pay the insurance claim as their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 was not insured. It is further averred that complainants are wholly dependent on the agricultural income but due to deficiency in service on the part of ops, the complainants did not get insurance claim from ops and as a result of which they have suffered mental agony as well as economical loss. Hence, this complaint seeking claim amount of Rs.1,75,890/- to each complainant besides compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Gigorani, 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 complainants themselves or by bank of complainants. In the present complaint, complainants are claiming for cotton crop of village Gigorani, 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 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 complainants have 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 involved 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 complainants have made a false, bogus and baseless story just to grab the compensation. With these averments, prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no cause of action, no consumer dispute, concealment of true and material facts and estoppal etc. On merits, while admitting about deduction of premium amounts from accounts of complainants, it is submitted that official of the bank called the complainants to provide KYC required for crop insurance for submission to insurance company alongwith insurance premium. The complainants came present and objected that why said amount has been debited from their accounts and asked that they do not require insurance for their crops. The officials of the bank requested them to submit any application/ letter in this regard but they created terror in the bank, hence amount debited in their accounts on 31.7.2017 for insurance was again credited in the accounts of complainants on 2.8.2017 and in this way, Kharif crops of 2017 of complainants could not be insured. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of answering op rather there is fault on the part of complainants. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
4. Complainants have tendered in evidence affidavit of Mange Ram complainant as Ex.PW2/A, affidavit of Surender complainant as Ex.PW3/A, report of Assistant Statistical Officer, office of DDA, Sirsa as Ex. C1, copy of Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification dated 13.6.2017 Ex.C2, copy of statement of account of Mange Ram as Ex.C3, copy of adhar card of complainant Mange Ram Ex.C4, copy of statement of account of complainant Surender Ex.C5, copy of his adhar card Ex.C6, copies of jamabandis Ex.C7, Ex.C8, copy of statement of account of Satbir Singh son of Keshu Ram, resident of village Gigorani Ex.C9, copy of statement of account of Sahi Ram son of Jai Singh, resident of village Gigorani Ex.C10 and copy of Text message received from bank regarding deduction of premium as Ex.C11.
5. On the other hand, op no.2 bank has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1 and copy of statement of account as Ex.R2.
6. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. The record reveals that complainants in order to prove their case have furnished affidavit of complainant Mange Ram as Ex.PW2/A and affidavit of complainant Surender as Ex.PW3/A in which they have reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. The complainants have also placed on file copy of statement of account of complainant Mange Ram Ex.C3, the perusal of which reveals that on 31.7.2017, premium amount of Rs.8045.40 was deducted by op bank from his account for insuring the Kharif crop of 2017. The perusal of statement of account of Surender Ex.C5 also reveals that on 31.7.2017, an amount of Rs.8045.40 was also deducted from his account by op bank for insuring his Kharif crop of 2017. Further, the perusal of these statements of accounts of complainants also reveals that on 11.8.2017, above said amounts of Rs.8045.40/- deducted from accounts of complainants were remitted back in their accounts. 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. In this regard, complainants have also placed on record copy of report of Agriculture Department, Sirsa as Ex.C1 to show that there was damage to the crop in village Gigorani. But however, op no.2 bank has taken a specific stand that after deduction of premium from the accounts of complainants on 31.7.2017 for insuring their crops of Kharif, 2017, the complainants personally visited the bank and objected that why said amounts have been debited from their accounts and asked that they do not require insurance for their crop. The officials of the Bank requested them to submit any application/ letter in this regard but they created terror in the bank. Therefore, amounts debited from their accounts on 31.7.2017 were again credited in their accounts on 2.8.2017 (though actually on 11.8.2017) and in this way their kharif crop of 2017 could not be insured. Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer of OP No.2 in his affidavit Ex.R1 has also corroborated the said version of op no.2 bank. The complainants have not denied and refuted the above said version of op no.2 bank in their affidavits Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/A.
9. Since, the premium amounts were deducted on 31.7.2017 for insurance of crop of complainants but as complainants raised objection for deduction of premium amount from their accounts, so same was returned back in their accounts on 11.8.2017 i.e. just within eleven days, therefore, it cannot be said that op bank is at fault for not insuring the crop of complainants. As the premium amounts were remitted back to the accounts of complainant just within eleven days at the behest of complainants, now complainants are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. So, complaint of the complainants deserve dismissal.
10 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 President,
Dated:05.04.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
