BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 418 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 5.08.2019.
Date of Decision : 31.10.2023
Partap aged about 53 years son of Shri Indraj, resident of village Kairanwali , Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. 4th Flooor ,The Statement Building, Plot No. 149 ,Industrial Area Phase 1,Next to Homtel Hotel,Chandigarh-160002,Through its Manager .
- Punjab National Bank, Branch Ding Mandi District, Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
- Deputy Director Agriculture Sirsa, District Sirsa
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR……………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Nageshwar Yadav, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party No.2 already Ex-parte.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party No.3
ORDER:-
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a small farmer having agricultural land situated at village Neharanwali, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa as per Jamabandi for the year 2017-18. He is having land in joint share comprised in Khewat No.38, Khatauni No.42. That complainant is maintaining and operating his KCC account bearing no.0642008800012872 with op no.2. It is further averred that as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna, an amount of Rs.1692.87 was deducted from above said account of complainant by op no.2 bank as premium amount on 31.07.2017 for insurance of cotton crop of kharif 2017 and insured the crop with op no.1 as disclosed by op no.1 bank. Despite the insurance and loss to his crops the complainant has not received any claim amount for damages and hence the present complaint against the Ops.
3. On notice, ops no.1 and 3 appeared. Op no.2 did not bother to contest this complaint, despite service and was proceeded exparte on 4-11-2022
4. Opposite party No.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage of alleged loss, that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers and if any mistake is done by bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. Other preliminary objections regarding non maintainability for want of jurisdiction, non intimation, 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 are also taken. On merits, it is averred that no intimation has been received regarding the loss of crop from the complainant as well as from any other agencies. However, the claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss occurred due to Rains, but the same is not leading to Inundation which is covered for loss under the scheme. 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/ banks and farmers. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.3 also filed the written statement with similar preliminary objections as taken by op no.1. It is submitted that op no.3 is only liable to submit loss report which has already been submitted. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and as such prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents i.e. Ex. C-2 copy of bank account, Ex. C-3 photo copy i.e. part of report of C.M window , Ex. C-4 photo copy of bank regarding CM window report of Bank, Ex. C-5 photo copy of jamabandi and Ex. C-6 complaint to the C.M. Window.
7. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh.BabuLal Deputy Director Agriculture sirsa, Ex.R-1, Ex.R2 and R-3, Notification of Haryana Government dt.13-6-2017.
8. Op no.2 had not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.3 and have gone through the case file carefully.
10. At the very outset it is pertinent to mention here that complainant in his complaint has sought insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of 2017.
The counsel for complainant contended that despite the loss to the cotton crop of complainant, ops had not compensated and paid any compensation and prayed for compensation for the loss of cotton crop.
11. On the other hand learned counsel for OP No. 1 Sh. R.K. Mehta, Adv. contended that the complainant is not maintainable as no loss has been caused to the crops of complainant. Ld. counsel for op no.1 as well as SA for op no.3 have further contended that complainant is estopped by his act and conduct as he has never approached the agriculture department for assessment of loss caused to his cotton crop and to obtain any report of loss regarding the threshold yield of block and average yield of his village to ascertain the loss and to claim compensation from ops and as such present complaint is liable to be dismissed and prayed for dismissal of this complaint.
12. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties. From the perusal of evidence on record, it is evident that complainant has not placed on record the copy of Khasra Girdawri regarding the sowing of cotton crop over his land. The complainant has not placed on record the copy of jamabandi to establish on record the area of his land to the extant 24 kanals as claimed by complainant and mentioned by the bank in the Ex.C-4. Further more, in Ex.R3 i.e. village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured the name of village Lehrawali is mentioned whereas complainant has alleged that he is having his land in village Nahranwali. In this regard, learned counsel for complainant contended that it appears that name of village Nahranwali has mentioned as Lehrawali due to some mistake. But from the said document it is not proved that there was any loss to the cotton crop of complainant in the land situated in that village because the average yield of that village is mentioned as 501.8 Kgs. per hectare whereas the threshold yield of block Nathusari Chopta is mentioned as 355.26 Kgs. per hectare and as the average ield of cotton crop of village of complainant was more than threshold yield of block, so there was no loss of cotton crop in the village of complainant. So, it is not proved on record that there was any loss to the cotton crop of complainant in Kharif, 2017. No other report of loss of crop of village Nahranwali from agriculture department or any other agency has been placed on file. So, the complainant has failed to prove on record any loss to his cotton crop in kharif, 2017.
13. In view of our above discussion, the complaint on merit 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: Member President,
Dated: 31.10.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
