BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 353 of 2019
Date of Institution : 04.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 27.02.2020.
Mahender Singh aged about 39 years son of Shri Satpal, resident of village Arniawali, Tehsil and District Sirsa. Mobile No. 99967-34702.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- 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.
- Punjab & Sindh Bank, Branch opposite LIC Building, Sirsa, District 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. R.D. Bishnoi, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Wadhwa, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is an agriculturist having his agricultural land (in joint share) comprised in Khewat No.1310, Khatuni No.1499, Khasra No.294 and 280 situated in village Shahpur Begu, Tehsil and District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 and he is wholly dependent upon the agricultural income in all respects. That complainant is having his account bearing No. 02991600093421 with op no.2. It is further averred that as per scheme of the Central Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna, the crops sown in the land of complainant was insured with the op insurance company against loss, damages of crop by natural reasons and causes and accordingly an amount of Rs.1791.08 was deducted on 27.7.2017 by op no.2 from the account of complainant in the above said bank and amount was transferred to the account of op no.1 against the said insurance of crops. It is further averred that complainant sown crop of cotton in about four acres of his above said land which was damaged due to attack of white bees and other natural calamities and complainant is entitled to insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- approximately i.e. Rs.50,000/- per acre as per above said scheme. It is further averred that complainant had sown crop of cotton in the above said land as shown in the khasra girdawari for the year 2017-18, whereas op no.2 in its record has shown the paddy crop due to clerical/ intentional mistake for the reason best known to op no.2 and as a result of discrepancy regarding kind of crop, the ops have refused to pay insurance claim to the complainant in respect of his damaged crop of cotton. It is further averred that to get his insurance claim, the complainant submitted an application to bank/ op no.2 with regard to the above said discrepancy and he was assured of needful action but no action was taken on this application. The complainant also contacted on toll free numbers of the office of Fasal Beema Yojna but his all efforts have gone in vain. 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 kharif crop has been effected 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 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 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 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.
3. Op no.2 filed separate written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, concealment of true and material facts and that complainant has approached this Forum even without approaching to grievance cell of Government Agencies as prescribed in the operational guidelines of the scheme, that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e. government agriculture department/ agencies etc. who are expert in the matter and quantum of loss cannot be determined in the summary proceedings without joinder of the expert in this field and all the crop losses were to be finalized by the government agencies and there is no role of the bank. It is further submitted that complainant was under duty to inform the bank on coming to know the insurance of crop to intimate the type of crop sown but the complainant had neither intimated the type of crop sown nor intimated claim for loss and nor supplied any proof of loss in support of claim to op no.2 which shows that alleged loss of crop had never been occurred. The claim cannot be decided on hypothesis unless cogent evidence for loss of crop is provided. It is further submitted that complainant after having knowledge of the insurance premium being debited to the loan account had not come to the bank to inform the bank in time the type of crop sown in the land mortgaged as such the insurance of the paddy crop was done to the best knowledge and belief of the bank. It is further submitted that complainant had not submitted any application in this regard to the bank and as per operational guidelines of the scheme, the farmer is under obligation that when he came to know that crop of complainant is insured to inform the bank that such and such crop is sown which can be corrected immediately and not after a long time when the seasons of the crop ends. Remaining contents of the 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 parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of khasra girdawari for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C1, copies of jamabandi Ex.C2, Ex.C3, copy of details of farmers Ex.C4 and copy of detail of account number of complainant and crop Ex.C5, copy of certificate Ex.C6, copy of application Ex.C7 and copy of letter Ex.C8 and postal receipt Ex.C9. On the other hand, op no.2 has produced affidavit of Sh. Randhir Singh, Senior Manager as Ex.RW1/A and copy of assessment form for short term loan Ex.R1. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence.
7. The complainant has filed this complaint with the allegations that he got his cotton crop of kharif 2017 insured with op no.1 through op no.2 and has claimed compensation for the loss of cotton crop of kharif 2017. But perusal of evidence of op no.2 reveals that op no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Randhir Singh, Senior Manager as Ex.RW1/A in which he has specifically deposed that insurance premium for paddy crop was paid as per complainant’s information submitted to the bank in the interview cum assessment form at the time of availing the crop loan and the matter was within the knowledge of complainant but the complainant has not turned up to inform the bank about the nature of crop sown by him within the prescribed period which is mentioned in the operational guidelines of the scheme. The op no.2 has also furnished copy of assessment form for short term loan Ex.R1 in which schedule of crop from May to November is mentioned as paddy crop and there is no mention of cotton crop at all. The said assessment form bears the signatures of complainant.
8. Learned counsel for complainant has not disputed signatures of complainant on Ex.R1 by which complainant had filled proposal at the time of taking loan that he will sow crop of paddy in kharif season. So, it appears that complainant got his paddy crop insured from op no.1 through op no.2 which deducted premium from KCC account of complainant.
9. The complainant has not placed on record any document or letter of intimation vide which he had informed op no.2 regarding change of crop from paddy to cotton. Though he has placed on record copy of khasra girdawari showing the cotton crop in the column of cultivation but however he has not placed on record any corroborative evidence in order to prove that he had sown crop of cotton and same was insured from op no.1 through op no.2.
10. 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:27.02.2020. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
