BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 10 of 2019
Date of Institution : 08.01.2019.
Date of Decision : 09.01.2020.
Ram Kumar, aged 57 years son of Sheo Nand, resident of village Kanwarpura, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometell Hotel, Chandigarh, through its Manager.
- State Bank of India, Sikanderpur Branch, 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. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. P.K. Berwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO on behalf of opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and he owns and possess agricultural land in village Kanwarpura and Phulkan, Tehsil and District Sirsa. That complainant is having his crop loan limit account with op no.2 bank bearing account No. 35865382043 and KCC account No. 35865775577. The complainant availed loan facility from op no.2 bank against mortgage of his share of land measuring 37 kanal 16 marlas (as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) situated in villages Phulkan and Kanwarpura. The op no.2 bank got insured the crop of complainant for which op no.2 deducted the premium amount of Rs.2,008/- from the loan account of complainant for insurance of cotton crop of kharif 2017 as per crop insurance scheme i.e. Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The complainant told to op no.2 that he has sown cotton crop in kharif 2017 in his aforesaid 37 kanals 16 marlas of land and accordingly op no.2 deducted the aforesaid amount of insurance premium and remitted the same to op no.1 as per policy. That said cotton crop of complainant in Kharif 2017 was destroyed due to climatic conditions as crop was attacked by white fly. Due intimation was sent to the ops and agriculture department conducted survey of the fields of village Phulkan and Kanwarpura and submitted its report. The op no.1 thereafter settled the claim of other farmers of village Phulkan and Kanwarpura as well as of real brothers of the complainant and also paid the insurance claim to farmers of aforesaid villages at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per acre but very strangely left the complainant and did not pay any amount to him. It is further averred that complainant contacted with the officers of the ops and inquired about non payment of his insurance claim but they did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. That complainant approached the ops and requested them to admit his claim and to pay compensation amount for damage of his cotton crop but they did not pay any heed and have refused to do so 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 cotton crop has been effected in village Kanwarpura, 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 also 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. Op no.2 filed separate written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that at the time of advancement of loan, the complainant has declared the schedule of crops sown in his lands i.e. in the month of May to June paddy, maize, B.T. cotton crops whereas November to October wheat and mustered crops and he requested the answering op to get his declared crops insured with op no.1. Accordingly, the answering op has transferred a sum of Rs.1699/- on 31.12.2017 to op no.1 on account of insurance premium for the insurance of declared crops of complainant after debiting the same to the loan account of complainant. In this way, the paddy crop of complainant was insured as per instructions of complainant. It is further submitted that bank authorities never assured to provide any service since they have not charged any penny on account of providing service of insurance. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
4. Opposite party no.3 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections as taken by op no.1. It is submitted that op no.3 is only liable to conduct survey and made its report according to the crop cutting experiment which is prescribed in the operational guidelines issued by the Government of India under PMFBY. The answering op always tried to make best efforts for welfare of the farmers, but cannot go beyond the operational guidelines issued under PMFBY and it is up to higher authorities as well as insurance company to settle the claim in question. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant, learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 as well as ASO on behalf of op no.3 and have gone through the record carefully.
7. 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 pass book Ex.C2, copy of jamabandi Ex.C3, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C4 and copy of village wise tabulation sheet Ex.C4 (It should be Ex.C5). OP no.3 produced affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture Ex.R1, copy of notification Ex.R2 and copy of tabulation sheet Ex.R3. Op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. O.P. Meel, Branch Manager as Ex.R4, copy of application form for agricultural credit Ex.R5 and copy of statement of account Ex.R6. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence.
8. The complainant has filed this complaint with the allegations that he got his cotton crop of kharif 2017 insured with op no.1 through op no.2 and has claimed compensation for the loss of cotton crop of kharif 2017. On the other hand, op no.2 bank has taken a specific plea that complainant did not get his crop of cotton insured with op no.1 through op no.2 though complainant was holding KCC account with op no.2 and premium was deducted by op no.2 and was paid to op no.1. As per defence plea of op no.2, premium was deducted for getting crop of paddy 2017 insured which is evident from document Ex.R5 i.e. application form for agricultural credit produced by op no.2.
9. Learned counsel for complainant has not disputed signatures of complainant on Ex.R5 by which complainant had filled proposal at the time of taking loan that he will sow crop of paddy in kharif season. So, it appears that complainant got his paddy crop insured from op no.1 through op no.2 which deducted premium from KCC account of complainant.
10. 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. Though he has placed on record copy of khasra girdawari showing the cotton crop in the column of cultivation but however he has not placed on record any corroborative evidence in order to prove that he had sown crop of cotton and same was insured from op no.1 through op no.2.
11. 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:09.01.2020. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
