BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 206 of 2019
Date of Institution : 23.04.2019.
Date of Decision : 19.02.2020.
- Rakesh Kumar, 2. Sanjay Kumar sons of Shri Gokal Ram, residents of village Jodhkan, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-150002 insurer of crop through its branch manager/ authorized person.
- HDFC Bank, SRB Building, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa through its Branch Manager/ authorized person.
- HDFC Bank, 1st Floor, C.S. No.6/542, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 through its authorized person.
- The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Dushyant Sharma, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
Opposite parties no.1 and 4 given up on 22.1.2020.
ORDER
The case of complainants, in brief, is that they are having agriculture land in village Kukkadthana, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa and they obtained KCC facilities from ops no.2 and 3. That op no.2 deducted crop insurance premium of Rs.12950.20 (Rs.12958.20) as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from the accounts of complainant on 31.7.2017 for insurance of their cotton crop and same was deposited back vide entry dated 2.8.2017. It is further averred that ops no.2 and 3 never intimated to the complainant that whether the crop of complainants is insured or not whereas ops no.2 and 3 are liable to deduct premium as per guidelines of above said scheme. That in the year 2017, crops of narma of complainants was damaged to the extent of 100% due to unnatural climates, pests/diseases and draught etc. and the area where the land of complainant is situated is notified by State Govt. for the benefits of above said scheme. That State Govt. directed the op no.4 to inspect the fields and to ascertain the damages caused to the insured crops of farmers and to submit the report. Accordingly, the op no.4 visited the agricultural land of complainant as well as other farmers and during inspection, it was found that narma crop of kharif, 2017 of complainant has been damaged to the extent of 100% and a report in this regard has been submitted to the Agricultural Department which further submitted the same to ops no.1 to 3. It is further averred that normally the farmers gains Rs.60,000/- per acre from the narma crop every year and as such the complainants suffered loss of Rs.13,20,000/-. That complainants after hearing from other farmers that they have got their compensation amount of the damaged crop in their KCC accounts again immediately contacted to op no.2 and found that premium amount of crop insurance was returned back on 2.8.2017 due to some big mistake or technical reason done at the end of ops no.1 to 3 and at that time they assured the complainants that they will solve the issue very soon. The complainants then took many rounds to the office of ops but they did not pay any heed and the ops in collusion with each other have caused huge financial loss to the complainants. The ops even did not supply any notification/ written letter regarding not issuing crop insurance policy to the complainants. That complainant approached to the ops no.1 to 4 many times but every time they put off the matter on one pretext or the other and finally a week ago, the op no.2 has refused to deal with genuine claim of complainants whereas the complainants are eligible for 100% claim as per report of the agriculture department. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, all the opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Kukkadthana, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta 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 complainants or by bank of complainants. In the present complaint, complainants are claiming for cotton crop of village Kukkadthana, 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 complainants, 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 complainants 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. It is further submitted that complainants never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of crop which is 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 based claims are decided by Government, no survey no qualification of loss, no privity of contract, non impleading of necessary parties and involvement of complicated facts are also taken. On merits, it is submitted that claim of complainants 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 complainants have made a false and baseless story just to grab the compensation. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Opposite parties no.2 and 3 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.12,958.20 was debited on 31.7.2017 in the account of complainant for payment to Insurance company op no.1 to insure the crops of complainants. The officials of answering ops demanded KYC documents from the complainant to submit the same to op no.1 with premium. But complainant objected that why amount of Rs.12,958.20 has been deducted from his account without his consent and he does not require insurance nor he supplied KYC documents. Hence, answering ops again credited said amount of Rs.12,958.20 in the account of complainant on 2.8.2017 and in this way crops of complainants could not be insured due to negligence of complainants. It is further submitted that if there is any loss to the complainants, they themselves are liable for the same due to their own conduct. The premium amount has been credited on the strong objection of complainants. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. OP no.4 also filed separate written statement 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.4 and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by the insurance company and there is no role of op no.4 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.4 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. The complainants in order to prove their complaint have furnished affidavit of Sanjay complainant as Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. They have also furnished copy of pass book Ex.C1, copy of jamabandi Ex.C2, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C3, copy of application Ex.C4, copies of adhar cards Ex.C5, Ex.C6 and copy of village wise tabulation sheet Ex.C7. Op no.4 produced affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture as Ex.R1, copy of notification Ex.R2 and copy of village wise tabulation sheet Ex.R3. Ops no.2 and 3 produced affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R4, copy of statement of account Ex.R5.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that on 22.1.2020 when the case was fixed for arguments, complainant Sanjay suffered a statement that he does not want to proceed against ops no.1 and 4 and gives up ops no.1 and 4 and as such ops no.1 and 4 were given up.
8. We have heard learned counsel for complainants as well as learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3 and have gone through the record carefully.
9. As per allegations of complainants, they availed KCC facilities from ops no.2 and 3. There are further allegations in the complaint that on 31.7.2017 op no.2 deducted crop insurance premium of Rs.12,958.20 from the joint KCC accounts of complainants as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for insurance of their cotton crop of kharif, 2017 and same was deposited back in their accounts on 2.8.2017 and ops no.2 and 3 never intimated to the complainants in this regard that whether the crop of the complainants is insured or not nor any reason was disclosed by ops no.2 and 3, whereas the ops no.2 and 3 were liable to deduct premium as per above said scheme from their account as per guidelines of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna.
10. Though complainant Sanjay has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and complainants have also tendered above said documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 in support of their claim but on the other hand ops no.2 and 3 have furnished affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer of the op no.2 bank as Ex.R4 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the written statement filed by ops no.2 and 3. It has been specifically deposed by him that amount of Rs.12958.20 had been debited on 31.7.2017 in the account of complainants for payment to insurance company no.1 to insure the crops of complainants. The officials of bank demanded KYC documents from the complainants to submit the same to op no.1 with premium but complainants objected why amount of Rs.12958.20 has been deducted from their account without their consent and they do not require insurance nor they supplied the KYC documents and as such bank again credited said amount of Rs.12958.20 in the account of complainants on 2.8.2017. In this way, crops of complainants could not be insured due to their own negligence.
11. The perusal of evidence of complainants reveals that complainant Sanjay in his affidavit has not denied the fact of defence plea which has been taken by ops bank in their written statement as well as in the affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer. So, once it is proved on record that crops of complainants was not got insured by complainants due to reason best known to them, they do not appear to be entitled for any claim for loss of their crop of kharif, 2017. Moreover, complainants have failed to establish any negligence on the part of ops bank. As such, ops no.2 and 3 cannot be forced to pay any compensation to the complainants as per clause XVII of the operational guidelines of the Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna.
12. In view of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that complainants have failed to prove their complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence. As such complainants are not entitled to any claim and present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 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. Member President,
Dated:19.02.2020. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
