BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 443 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 07.08.2019.
Date of Decision : 04.10.2022.
- Naresh Kumar, aged about 36 years son of Shri Bhoop Singh,
- Bhoop Singh, aged about 66 years son of Har Chand, both residents of village Kharian, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. Mobile No. 94679-08244.
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, Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, 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.
Present: Sh. Ved Parkash, 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 they are agriculturists having land in joint share (as detailed in para no.1 of complaint) situated in village Kharian, Tehsil Rania District Sirsa as per jamabandi for year 2012-2013 and are wholly dependent upon agricultural income in all respects. They are having their joint account bearing no. 50200010650256 with op no.2. On 31.07.2017, an amount of Rs.9502.35 was deducted by op no.2 from said account of complainants and was paid to op no.1 for insuring their crop with op no.1 under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna. The complainants sown crop of cotton in about 19 acres of their land in Kharif, 2017 which was damaged to disaster of white bees and other natural calamities and they are entitled to the insurance claim amount of Rs.5,70,000/- approximately at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre as per above said scheme. That op no.2 in its record has shown paddy crop due to clerical/ intentional mistake and as a result of this discrepancy regarding kind of crop, the ops have refused to pay insurance claim to the complainants in respect of their damaged crop of cotton. It is further averred that to get insurance claim, the complainants submitted an application to op no.2 with regard to above said discrepancy and they were assured to do needful but to no effect. That despite their all efforts to get the record of bank/ insurance company corrected, the ops are adamant not to admit their mistake and correct the concerned record and have failed to make any payment of claim amount to them and have caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage of alleged loss, insurance company cannot be quested for proposal related disputes, not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, 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 further submitted 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 complainants or by bank of complainants, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied. It is submitted that claim of complainants was rejected as crop loss occurred due to rains but the same is not leading to Inundation which is covered for loss under the scheme and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 filed reply submitting therein that at the time of advancement of loan to the complainants by answering op, the complainants had declared the pattern of crop for their land as paddy-wheat. The complainants had never informed the bank regarding the change of the pattern of the crop. The Bank has debited the amount of Rs.9502.35 from the account of complainants and has credited the same to the account of op no.1 as premium of the insurance and all the information required by op no.1 was sent to the insurance company as per rules. It is further submitted that answering op has got insured the paddy crops as it was declared by complainants regarding their crop pattern. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. The complainants have tendered their affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.
6. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sourabh Mehta, Assistant Manager as Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing opportunities.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. The complainants are claiming insurance claim amount for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. However, op no.2 bank has taken a specific stand that at the time of advancement of loan amount to the complainants, they declared pattern of crop as paddy and wheat and they never informed the bank regarding the change of pattern of their crop and accordingly the bank got insured the paddy crop of kharif, 2017 with op no.1. The op no.2 bank has also placed on file application for agriculture loan as Ex.R1 which is duly signed by the complainants, the perusal of which reveals that at the time of taking loan from the op no.2 bank, the complainants declared the pattern of crop as paddy in Kharif season and wheat in Rabi season and at the viability of paddy crop, the loan amount was sanctioned by the bank to the complainants. The complainants have not placed on file any document to show that they ever informed the op no.2 bank regarding change of pattern of their crop. Even in the affidavit of complainants Ex.C1, they have not denied the fact that they have not availed crop loan for paddy crop. Since cotton crop of complainants was not got insured by op no.2 bank nor any intimation qua change of pattern of crop was ever given by complainants to op no.2 bank, it appears that complainants are not entitled for loss of cotton crop which was not insured with insurance company and for which premium was not deducted by op no.2 bank. If the complainants changed the crop from paddy to cotton, intimation of change of crop should have been given by the complainants to the op no.2 bank. Since, no intimation regarding change of crop has been given to the op no.2 bank, therefore, complainants are estopped from filing the present complaint by their own act and conduct.
9. In view of our above discussion, 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 free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President,
Dated: 4.10.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
