BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 112 of 2019
Date of Institution : 06.03.2019.
Date of Decision : 28.11.2019.
Sahab Ram aged about 60 years son of Sh. Narain Ram, resident of village Chakkan, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- ICICI Lombard, 1st Floor, Dharam Satya, State Bank of India (ADB) Branch, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
- HDFC Bank, Ellenabad, Tehsil Ellenabad, Distt. Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anjani Kumar Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is an agriculturist and is owner in possession of land measuring 57 kanals 16 marlas (as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint) situated in village Chakkan, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. The complainant sown Narma crops in May, 2017 in his above mentioned land. That complainant raised crop loan under Kissan Credit Limit facility from op no.2 vide rapat no.4004 TSC dated 25.2.2014, for limit of Rs.16,05,000/- of his land measuring 57 kanals 16 marlas and as per policy of the Government, the op no.2 got insured the Narma crop with op no.1 for the kharif 2017. The op no.2 debited a sum of Rs.3303-30P on 31.7.2017 in the account of complainant as crops insurance premium for the sum assured and thus, the narma crops of kharif, 2017 was insured by op no.2 with op no.1. It is further averred that said narma crops of kharif 2017 sown by complainant in his above said land were destroyed due to climate conditions. The Agriculture Department surveyed the agriculture fields of village Ghoranwali and submitted its report to the ops. The op no.1, thereafter settled the claim of the farmer of village Chakkan but very strangely declined to pay insurance claim to the complainant and few other farmers of village Chakkan and did not pay any amount to them as compensation. It is further averred that they contacted the officers of op no.1 in this regard where upon complainant was told that compensation has been paid to those farmers who have sown narma crops and not to other farmers and complainant who have sown paddy crops and not sown narma crop in their agriculture land. The complainant apprised the officer of op no.1 that he has sown narma crop and not paddy crops and also assured the op no.1 that in village Chakkan only narma crop are sown and paddy crop is not sown even in single killa. The complainant also showed khasra girawari to op no.1 but to no effect rather they stated that op no.2 bank has provided their detail of insurance of paddy crop and thereby op no.1 refused to entertain the claim of complainant. That complainant raised loan from op no.2 and got insured his narma crop of 2017 with op no.1 and no paddy crop was ever insured in village Chakkan and this is negligence on the part of op no.2 as op no.2 has submitted a wrong report to op no.1 and same led to the losses to the complainant without his fault. It is further averred that in this manner, both the ops have committed gross deficiency in services towards the complainant. 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 Chakkan, 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. 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 same 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 reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has proposed in his loan application that he will sow the crop of paddy as kharif crop. He has availed the financial assistance in the shape of KCC limit as per paddy crop and op bank has provided financial assistance to him on the viability of paddy crop. Hence, as per instruction of complainant, answering op has deducted the amount from the account of complainant for the payment of insurance premium under PMFBY and paid the same to op no.1 for insurance of paddy crop of complainant. It is further submitted that op bank has got insured proposed crop from op no.1, who is liable to compensate the complainant for damage of insured crop. It was the duty of op no.1 to visit the spot and insured the crop. If crop of paddy was not available on the spot and they have not insured the crop, then it was duty of op no.1 to refund the premium of insurance. If op no.1 has accepted the same, then it will be presumed that crop of complainant was insured, hence op no.1 is liable for any loss to the complainant. Moreover, it was duty of complainant to call the officials of op no.1 at the time of visiting the officials of Agriculture department. The answering op is not liable for any type of compensation. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant and op no.2 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 affidavit of Sh. Satbir Singh, Assistant Statistical Officer, office of DDA, Sirsa as Ex.CW1/A who has proved copy of village wise tabulation sheet as Ex.C1, document regarding threshold yield and average yield as Ex.C2, copy of formula regarding assessment Ex.C3, copy of notification Ex.C4. The complainant has also furnished his affidavit Ex.CW2/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also tendered copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 as Ex.C5, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C6, copy of statement of account as Ex.C7, copy of adhar card Ex.C8, copy of application Ex.C9, copy of application and verification report Ex.C10, copy of mortgage deed Ex.C11 and copies of applications Ex.C12 and Ex.C13.
7. On the other hand, op no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager as Ex.R1, and copy of application for retail agriculture loan Ex.,R2 and copy of statement of account as Ex.R3. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence.
8. As per allegations of complainant, he had sown crop of narma in his agricultural land measuring 57 kanals 16 marlas in the year 2017 and placed on record copy of jamabandi and copy of khasra girdawari as Ex. C5 and Ex.C6 in support of his claim, but however, claim of complainant for compensation on account of damage of crop has been declined by op no.1 on the ground that complainant had made declaration of paddy crop while taking loan from op no.2. There is specific plea of op no.2 that complainant proposed in his loan application that he will sow the crop of paddy as kharif crop. He has availed the financial assistance in the shape of KCC limit as per paddy crop and op bank has provided financial assistance to him on the viability of paddy crop. As per instruction of complainant, op no.2 has deducted the amount from the account of complainant for the payment of insurance premium under PMFBY and paid the same to op no.1 for insurance of paddy crop of complainant. The complainant has though relied upon copy of khasra girdawari showing crop of cotton but however, complainant has not denied that he has not made declaration of crop to op no.2. The op no.2 has taken the plea that cotton crop of complainant was not insured with op no.1. The op no.2 has taken specific plea that complainant had taken crop loan from op no.2 against mortgage of his agricultural land. At the time of advancement of loan, complainant proposed in his loan application that he will sow the crop of paddy as kharif crop. He has availed the financial assistance in the shape of KCC limit as per paddy crop and op bank has provided financial assistance to him on the viability of paddy crop. As per instruction of complainant, op no.2 has deducted the amount from the account of complainant for the payment of insurance premium under PMFBY and paid the same to op no.1 for insurance of paddy crop of complainant. In order to prove their plea, Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager has furnished his affidavit Ex.R1 in which he has reiterated averments made in the reply and also deposed qua taking of crop loan for paddy crop by complainant and also deposed that they deducted amount of premium for insurance of crop of paddy which was transferred to op no.1. In order to prove their plea further bank has relied upon Ex.R2 copy of application for retail agriculture loan which bears the signatures of the complainant and there is no mention of cotton crop in the said application. So, it is proved on record that complainant had taken crop loan for sowing crop of paddy which was got insured by op no.2 from op no.1. It is further proved that complainant never gave any intimation to the ops qua the change of crop nor he ever made any request to the ops no.1 and 2 to inspect the standing crop. So, it is proved on record that cotton crop of complainant was never got insured from op no.1.
9. 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:28.11.2019. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
