BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 140 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 15.03.2019.
Date of Decision : 03.05.2021.
Raj Rani aged about 54 years wife of Sh. Radhe Shyam, resident of village Modi, Sub Tehsil Goriwala, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Triloki Chambers, 1st Floor, SCO- 4307/4/21 Opposite Municipal Council Ambala Cantt., Ambala (Haryana) through its Manager/ Proprietor.
2. State Bank of India Branch Subzi Mandi, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa through its Manager.
3. Deputy Director of Agriculture Department, Sirsa (Haryana).
...…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. JASWANT SINGH…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Ankit Narang, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant has 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 complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owns three acres, six kanals and sixteen marlas land comprised in Khewat No. 142, Khatoni No. 174 and Khewat No. 378, Khatoni No. 435 situated in village Modi, Tehsil Dabwali District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013. That in the year 2014, the complainant had availed a crop loan of Rs.4,24,000/- under KCC scheme from op no.2 vide account number 61226250304 and had got mortgaged her land vide registered mortgaged deed. It is further averred that Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY scheme) was launched by Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on 13.2.2016 and as per scheme, it is mandatory for the Banks to insure all the borrowers under the said scheme and the premium is to be deducted from the loan account and is to be forwarded to op no.1, therefore, if there is loss of the crop in respective area which has been covered under the scheme, the claims are being processed and amount to the extent of insurance are being given by crediting the same in the loan account of the respective farmers as per the scheme. It is further averred that as per PMFBY scheme after every six months, op no.2 deducted the premium amount from the account of complainant for insurance of crop. The op no.2 debited a sum of Rs.1098.94 on 29.7.2017 and Rs.1007.37 on 18.8.2017 in the aforesaid account of complainant towards insurance premium for insurance of kharif cotton crop of complainant and thereby got insured the crop of complainant with op no.1. It is further averred that in crop season of kharif, 2017, the complainant had sown cotton crop in her three acres of land, which was duly insured with op no.1 but due to white flies, the said cotton crop of complainant and other farmers of village Modi damaged to the extent of 80%. The field of complainant and other farmers of village Modi were inspected by the officers of agriculture department and a report of the officers was duly forwarded to the ops by Agriculture Department. That as per report, the average production of cotton crop is 215.96 Kgs. per hectare. In the kharif season, 2017, the op no.1 had settled the claim of farmers of village Modi and paid Rs.18,000/- per acre as insurance claim to farmers of village Modi but very strangely left the complainant and few other farmers of village Modi and did not pay any amount to them as compensation qua insurance claim. The complainant suffered total loss of Rs.54,000/- for the damage of cotton crop. It is further averred that complainant and other farmers of village Modi contacted op no.2 and inquired about their insurance claim for damaged crop. The complainant had made a complaint in this regard to Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Sirsa and in response to the complaint, Branch Manager, SBI, Mandi Dabwali had acknowledged that they had deducted the insurance premium and same has been remitted to op no.1 and also accepted regarding damage of cotton crop and also stated that they have contacted Sh. Manish Kumar official of op no.1 several times on telephone and through emails, but the insurance claim has not been received till date. It is further averred that as per PMFBY scheme, it is the duty of op no.2 bank to get crop insured from op no.1 and to provide all relevant documents to op no.1 and if due to any fault of op no.2, the insurance claim is not credited in the bank account of complainant, then op no.2 is liable to pay compensation of amount of Rs.54,000/- to the complainant, otherwise op no.1 is liable to pay the compensation. That in this manner, both the ops have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and have caused financial loss and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
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 Modi, 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 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. Opposite party no.2 filed written version 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 by 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 and was to be paid to op no.1 insurance company by the bank. In the present case, the bank has debited the amount of Rs.2106.31 from the account of complainant and has credited the same to the account of op no.1 as premium of insurance. All the information required by op no.1 was sent to the insurance company as per rules. The op no.1 has never informed the complainant or the bank regarding any discrepancy in the record or information sent by the bank. Till date, the answering op has no knowledge that on what ground, the claim has been rejected by the company. There is no deficiency of service on the part of answering op. On merits, while denying the contents of the complaint, it is submitted that after filing of present complaint, the complainant approached the bank and answering op made inquiry from op no.1 regarding fate of claim and they informed that the claim has been rejected. The op no.1 has never given any information regarding the reason of rejection of the claim. The answering op has provided all the required information to op no.1 regarding the insurance and op no.1 has never made any query from answering op or from complainant. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
4. OP no.3 also filed separate written version raising certain preliminary objections as taken by op no.1. It is submitted that crop cutting experience report or survey of loss of crop is to be conducted by op no.3 and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of op no.3 in this regard. The yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only and after completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme, which have already been given by op no.3 within specific time period as prescribed in the operational guidelines of Government of India. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence.
6. Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Ex.CW1/A, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C1, copy of mutation Ex.C2, copy of statement of account Ex.C3, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C4, copy of letter of Deputy Director Agriculture Ex.C5, application of complainant regarding payment of claim amount moved to Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Sirsa Ex.C6, letter alongwith reply regarding insurance claim of Regional Manager Ex.C7.
7. On the other hand, Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO on behalf of op no.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R1, copy of Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department notification dated 13.06.2017 Ex.R2, copy of village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY During Kharif, 2017 Ex.R3.
8. Learned counsel for op no.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Govind Gopal Gupta, Sr. Manager as Ex.R4 and copy of list of farmers whose claims have been approved and rejected as Ex.R5.
9. Learned counsel for op no.1 closed the evidence without leading the same.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO on behalf of op no.3 and have gone through the case file carefully.
11. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that as per Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY scheme), which was launched in the year 2016, the crops of every farmers who have obtained crop loan from any Financial Institutions i.e. Banks etc. and are growing notified crops were to be compulsorily insured with the insurance company by the Bank of the loanee farmers. The complainant is an agriculturist and has also availed crop loan from the opposite party no.2 by mortgaging his agricultural land as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint. He has further contended that as per scheme of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna, the opposite party no.2 deducted premium amount of Rs.1098.94 on 29.7.2017 and Rs.1007.37 on 18.8.2017 for insuring the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainant with the opposite party no.1 insurance company. He has further contended that the cotton crop of complainant of the Kharif season, 2017 was damaged to the extent of 80% but till date the complainant has not received any compensation whereas other farmers of his village have already received compensation amount at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre for the loss of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and complainant is also entitled to receive compensation from the opposite parties for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 has contended that alleged loss to the crop of complainant is not covered under the said insurance scheme and moreover, complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance scheme, hence he is not entitled to any compensation from opposite party no.1.
13. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has contended that officials of the Bank have discharged their duties by deducting the amount of premium from the account of complainant i.e. loanee farmer for insuring his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and said amount of premium has been credited in the account of op no.1 i.e. insurance company and now matter of payment of claim amount is between complainant and op no.1 and op no.2 is not liable to pay any claim amount to the complainant.
14. Sh. Satvir Singh, Assistant Statistical Officer on behalf of opposite party no.3 has contended that agriculture department has conducted crop cutting experiment of the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and has submitted its report to the higher authorities. Op no.1 i.e. insurance company is liable to pay claim amount to the complainant for loss to the crop of the complainant.
15. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
16. The complainant in order to prove her ownership over the agricultural land in village Modi, District Sirsa has placed on file copy of jamabanadi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C1. The complainant has placed on record copy of statement of account Ex.C3, from which it is proved on record that on 29.7.2017, an amount of Rs.1098.94 was deducted from her account by op no.2 as insurance premium and then on 18.8.2017, an amount of Rs.1007.37 was debited from her account by op no.2 as difference of premium.
17. Admittedly, the complainant had taken crop loan against her agricultural land from op no.2 and op no.2 deducted an amount of Rs.1098.94 on 29.7.2017 from her account for insuring the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 with op no.1 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Then on 18.8.2017, an amount of Rs.1007.37 was deducted by op no.2 from her account as difference of premium. The cotton crop of kharif, 2017 of the complainant has been damaged due to white fly. The complainant approached the ops for compensation but same was not disbursed to him.
18. It is admitted by op no.2 bank that, bank has debited the amount of Rs.2106.31 from the account of complainant and same has been credited to the account of op no.1 as premium of insurance. All the information required by op no.1 was also sent to the insurance company as per rules and op no.1 has never informed the complainant or the bank regarding any discrepancy in the record or information sent by the Bank. Till date, the op no.2 has no knowledge that on what ground, the claim has been rejected by the insurance company.
19. There is no denial on the part of the opposite party no.1 that it did not receive any premium amount for insuring the cotton crop of complainant from op no.2 on behalf of complainant. The only main plea of the op no.1 insurance company is that claim of the complainant has been 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. However, we found no substance in this plea of the opposite party no.1 insurance company. Firstly, the loss to the crop of complainant has been caused due to white fly and it is not the case of the complainant that loss to his crop has been occurred due to rain. Secondly, the op no.1 has received premium amount for insuring the crop of complainant but has not supplied any insurance policy and its terms and conditions to the complainant intimating that what type of loss to the crop is covered in the policy and what type of loss is not covered as per terms and conditions of the policy. The op no.1 has not led any evidence in support of its version. Moreover, the op no.1 has also not denied the fact that other villagers of the village of complainant have not been given any claim amount for the loss of their crops. In so far as damage to the crop of complainant is concerned, the opposite party no.3 has placed on file Annexure ‘A’ regarding threshold yield alongwith notification of the Haryana Govt. dated 13.6.2017 Ex.R2 and according to Annexure ‘A’, the threshold yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of Dabwali Block is 628.02 Kg. per Hectare, whereas as per letter of Deputy Director, Agricultural and Farmer Welfare Department, Sirsa Ex.C5, the average yield of cotton crop of village Modi is 215.96 Kg. per hectare. So as per clause 13 (b) (i) of notification of the Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Ex.R2 which says that shortfall in yield will be calculated by comparing the threshold yield with the actual yield estimated through crop cutting experiments, there is loss to the crop of complainant as the average yield of the village Modi is less than threshold yield of Dabwali Block. So, in our view the complainant is entitled to compensation for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. However, op no.1 is only found liable to pay the compensation amount whereas ops no.2 and 3 have discharged their official duties. Non payment of genuine claim amount to the complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of op no.1.
20. Now we assess the amount of claim for the loss of crop of complainant of the Kharif, 2017. The complainant in para no.6 of her complaint has claimed that she had sown cotton crop in her three acres of land and there was loss of cotton crop to the extent of 80%. She has further claimed that other farmers of village have received compensation at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre and as such she is entitled to the claim amount of Rs.54,000/- alongwith interest. Op no.1 has failed to rebut the said demand of the complainant by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. As such, complainant is entitled to the claim amount of Rs.54,000/- for her destroyed crops from opposite party no.1. However, complaint qua ops no.2 and 3 stands dismissed.
21. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.54,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till actual realization to the complainant for the loss of her cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. We also direct the opposite party no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- as composite compensation for mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses. The opposite party no.1 is directed to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which aforesaid amount of Rs.54,000/- will carry interest @12% per annum. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Commission. President,
Dated:03.05.2021. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
Typed by:
Jagdish Kumar (Stenographer)
