BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 273 of 2019
Date of Institution : 22.05.2019.
Date of Decision : 27.02.2020.
Raja Ram, aged about 59 years son of Sh. Sajjan Kumar, resident of village Mehnakhera, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Sawarkar Marg, near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025, through its authorized signatory/ Incharge.
- State Bank of India, ADB Branch, situated at Dabwali Road, Sirsa through its Branch Manager and Principal Officer.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. A.K. Siroha, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is an agriculturist having his agricultural land situated in village Madhosinghana, Tehsil and District Sirsa. That complainant is owner in possession of 1/3rd share out of 8064/10727 share of agriculture land measuring 498 kanals 07 marlas, kittas 81 comprised in Khewat no.159 Khatuni No. 187 to 189, 1/3rd share of land measuring 87 kanals 18 marlas kittas 13, comprised in Khewat No.161 Khatuni No. 199 and 1/6th share of land measuring 162 kanals 01 marla comprised in khewat no.344, khatuni no.419, kittas 24 as per jamabandi for year 2016-2017. That complainant is having his KCC loan account with op no.2 bearing No. 30448074662 and he had taken agriculture loan from op no.2 after mortgaging his land measuring 40 kanals 5 marlas out of aforesaid land. It is further averred that crop of cotton is sown in the land as per soil of the land and it is not fit for paddy crop and even the complainant has never sown paddy crop in this land. That as per scheme of Central Government i.e. Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna, the cotton crop of complainant was insured with op no.1 against any type of loss due to natural reasons and causes and accordingly an amount of Rs.5644.74 was deducted from the account of complainant by op no.2 and was transferred to the account of op no.1. It is further averred that above said crop of cotton of kharif, 2017 was totally damaged due to natural reason and complainant could not get any amount from the cotton crop sown in his above mentioned land. Normally yield of about 16 quintal narma is taken in one acre of land and rate of narma crop is market is more than Rs.5000/- per quintal and in this way complainant has suffered loss of about Rs.80,000/- in one acre of land and has suffered total loss of Rs.4,00,000/-. The complainant had informed both the ops well in time regarding damages of the crops in his fields. That complainant met the officials of ops and told them true position regarding damages of the crops and they had assured that they will see the spot and after conducting the survey, the amount of insurance will be released to him very soon, but despite several requests of complainant, he has not been given any amount. It is further averred that officials of ops told that complainant had got insured the paddy crop but in fact complainant got insured cotton crop and he has never asked the ops for change of crops and even the complainant has not given any writing about sowing of paddy crops instead of actual sowing of cotton crop. At the time of conducting insurance of the crop, the officials of bank had visited the fields of complainant and by that time narma crop was standing. That despite several requests and demands of complainant, the ops have now totally refused to admit the claim of complainant about a week back. 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 in village Madhosinghana, 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 reply 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, at the time of advancement of loan to the complainant by answering op, the complainant had produced revenue record and had also declared the pattern of crop for his land as paddy-wheat. The complainant had never informed the bank regarding change of the pattern of the crop. The bank has debited the amount of Rs.5641.35 on 31.7.2017 from the account of complainant and has credited the same to the account of op no.1 as premium of the insurance. All the information required by op no.1 was sent to the insurance company as per rules. There is no deficiency of service on the part of answering op. It is further submitted that it is wrong and denied that the crop of Narma/ cotton has been declared to be insured with the company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C2, copy of khasra girdawari for the year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 Ex.C3, copy of statement of account Ex.C4 and copy of adhar card Ex.C5. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Ashish Kumar, Assistant Manager as Ex.R1 and copy of crop loan form Ex.R2 and copy of khasra girdawari Ex.R3 and copy of details of crops of loanee farmers Ex.R4. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence.
7. As per allegations of complainant, he had sown crop of cotton in his agricultural land in kharif, 2017 and same was got insured from op no.2 through op no.1 which deducted amount of Rs.5644.74 as insurance premium from KCC account of complainant which is evident from copy of statement of account Ex.C4. There are further allegations of the complainant that crop of cotton is sown in his field and his land is not fit for paddy crop. The complainant has also tendered copy of jamabandi Ex.C2 to prove his ownership and has also tendered copy of khasra girdawari for the year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 Ex.C3 to prove the fact of sowing of cotton crop. But perusal of evidence of op no.2 reveals that op no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Ashish Kumar, Assistant Manager Ex.R1 in which he has specifically deposed that at the time of advancement of loan to the complainant by op no.2 in July, 2008, the complainant had produced the revenue record i.e. khasra girdawari for kharif 2007 to Rabi 2008 and had also declared the pattern of crop for his land as paddy-wheat. The complainant had never informed the bank regarding change of pattern of crop. The op no.2 has also produced copy of crop loan form Ex.R2 in which pattern of crop in May to October is mentioned as paddy and the same bears signatures of complainant Raja Ram. The op no.2 has also produced on record copy of khasra girdawari for the year 2007-2008 of the land of complainant in which crop is mentioned as paddy. The complainant has not placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that complainant at the time of advancement of loan did not give the schedule of above said crop to the op bank. The op bank had deducted the premium from the account of complainant and got paddy crop insured for kharif, 2017 and never got insured the cotton crop from the insurance company as claimed by complainant. Learned counsel for complainant has not disputed signatures of complainant on Ex.R2 by which complainant had filled proposal at the time of taking loan that he will sow crop of paddy in kharif season. 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. Since cotton crop of complainant was not got insured by complainant nor any intimation qua change of pattern of crop was ever given by complainant to op bank, so it appears that complainant is not entitled for loss of cotton crop which was not duly insured with insurance company and for which premium was not deducted by op bank.
8. 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
