BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 518 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 05.09.2019.
Date of Decision : 26.07.2022.
Shishpal @ Shishu Pal Mehta son of Guraya Ram, resident of House No.65, Gali No.2, Multani Colony, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. 4th Floor, the Statement Building, Plot No. 149, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh.
2. Canara Bank Main Branch Near Surkhab Chowk, Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
3. District Agriculture Officer, Sirsa.
...…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. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Madan Jangra, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant 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).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist having land measuring 21 kanals 13 marlas (as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) situated in village Khuiya Nepalpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 and is wholly dependent upon agricultural income. He is having his account bearing No. 1403840006668 with op no.2. It is further averred that as per scheme of Central Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna, the crop sown in the land of complainant was being insured with op no.1 against loss, damages of crop and accordingly an amount of Rs.1447/- was deducted on 29.7.2017 as premium by op no.2 from the account of complainant and was paid to op no.1 for the insurance of crops. It is further averred that said deduction of the amount of Rs.1447/- and insurance was without consent and knowledge of complainant and he came to know about the deduction through message on his mobile. That complainant had sown crop of cotton in above said land in Kharif, 2017 season which was damaged due to disaster of white bees and other natural calamities and therefore, complainant is entitled to insurance amount of Rs.1,30,000/- approximately at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre. It is further averred that complainant had sown crop of cotton as shown in Khasra Girdawari for the year 2017-2018 but ops have shown paddy crop due to clerical/ intentional mistake for the reason best known to the ops and as a result of discrepancy regarding kind of crop, the ops have refused to pay insurance claim to the complainant. That at the time of availing KCC limit, the complainant had delivered Khasra girdawari of cotton crop to the op no.2 and complainant is only sowing cotton crop because no other crop is sown in his field. It is further averred that to get his insurance claim, the complainant submitted an application to Canara Bank with regard to above said discrepancy and he was assured to do needful but to no effect. That despite all his efforts to get the record of bank/ insurance company corrected, the ops are adamant not to admit their mistake and correct the concerned record and have failed to make any payment of claim amount to him and have caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 3 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 Khuiya, 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 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.
4. OP no.3 also filed separate written version raising certain preliminary objections as taken by op no.1. It is submitted that answering op is only liable to conduct the CCE’s experiments (crop cutting experiment) and yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by the answering op within specific time period as prescribed in the operational guidelines of the Government of India. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
5. Op no.2 did not appear despite service of notice and as such op no.2 was proceeded exparte.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.P1, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.P2, copy of statement of account Ex.P3.
7. On the other hand, Op no.3 has tendered 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. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant, learned counsel for op no.1 as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA on behalf of op no.3 and have gone through the case file carefully.
10. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint and in order to prove his ownership over the agricultural land in village Khuyian Nepalpur, District Sirsa has placed on file copy of jamabanadi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.P1. Admittedly the complainant has also availed crop loan facility from op no.2. The complainant has also placed on record copy of statement of account Ex.P3, from which it is proved on record that on 29.7.2017, an amount of Rs.1447/- was deducted from his account by op no.2 as insurance premium for paying the same to op no.1 insurance company for insurance of crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. According to complainant he had sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 season in his 21 kanals 3 marlas agricultural land which was damaged due to disaster of white bees and other natural calamities and as such he is entitled to claim amount of Rs.1,30,000/- approximately at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre for the damage of his insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. The op no.3 i.e. agricultural department which is to conduct survey of the damage of the crops has placed on file copy of Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department notification dated 13.6.2017 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 (CCEs) and in cases where required number of CCEs could not be conducted due to non availability of adequate cropped area, the yield estimate for such IUs will be made by adopting the yield of next higher unit i.e. block. The op no.3 in its written statement as well as in affidavit Ex.R1 has submitted that they have already completed necessary formalities as prescribed in operation guidelines of scheme i.e. have already provided survey report regarding damage of crops to the insurance company. In this regard, op no.3 has also placed on record report of threshold yield as Annexure A with Ex.R2 and Annexure D i.e. list of rain gauge stations and village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during Kharif, 2017 as Ex.R3. According to Annexure A threshold yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of block Sirsa under which village Khyian Nepalpur i.e. village of complainant falls was 640.80 Kgs. per hectare whereas according to village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during Kharif, 2017 Ex.R3, the actual yield of cotton crop of village Khuian Nepalpur under the Block Sirsa was 378.05 Kgs. per hectare and as the actual yield of cotton crop of village Khuian Nepalpur under the Block Sirsa was less than threshold yield of Sirsa block, there was loss to the cotton crop of village Khuian Nepalpur of Kharif, 2017 as per above said notification of Haryana Government Ex.R2. So, it is proved on record that there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017.
11. Now the question arises for consideration that to what amount of claim the complainant is entitled for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and who is liable to pay the said claim amount to the complainant? In this regard, complainant has claimed that as cotton crop in his 21 kanal 13 marlas land was damaged, he is entitled to claim amount of about Rs.1,30,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre. However, for calculation of claim amount, a formula has been given in the operational guidelines of PMFBY which is as under:-
Threshold Yield minus Actyal Yield X Sum Insured.
Threshold yield
12. The complainant owns 21 kanals 13 marlas land in village Khuiyan Nepalpur which is equal to 1.06 hectare. As mentioned above, the threshold yield of cotton crop of block Sirsa was 640.80 Kgs. per hectare and actual yield of village Khuian Nepalpur was 378.05 Kgs. per hectare. In the document regarding sum insured of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 placed on file by op no.3, it is mentioned that sum insured for cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 in Sirsa District was Rs.69,000/- per hectare and therefore, the calculation of the claim amount for the loss of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainant in village Khuian Nepalpur is as under:-
640.80 minus 378.05 multiple by
640.80 69000 X 1.06 hectare = Rs. 29,990/-.
13. From above calculation, it is evident that complainant was entitled to the claim amount of Rs.29,990/- (in round figure Rs.30,000/-) for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in village Khuian Nepalpur. The complainant has alleged that ops have shown the paddy crop instead of cotton crop in the record and complainant visited the ops many times for correction of above said mistake and payment of claim amount to him but the ops no.1 and 2 did not pay any heed to his genuine requests. The complainant has also testified in his complaint as well as in affidavit that at the time of availing KCC limit, he had delivered Khasra Girdawari of cotton crop to op no.2 bank and complainant only cultivates cotton crop in his field in Kharif season. The complainant has also placed on file copy of Khasra girdawari of year 2017-2018 as Ex.P2, the perusal of which reveals that complainant sown cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 season. The complainant has also stated that he also submitted an application to Canara Bank i.e. op no.2 for removing above said discrepancy regarding kind of crop but despite assurance given by op no.2 bank, no action was taken on his application. The op no.2 bank has not bothered to appear before this Commission and has failed to contest the present complaint and to rebut the allegations leveled by complainant against it and therefore, pleadings and evidence led by complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted against op no.2 bank. So, it is proved on record that op no.2 bank committed mistake while showing crop of paddy instead of cotton crop in its record and as such op no.2 bank is deficient in service. At the same time, the insurer of crop of complainant i.e. op no.1 insurance company has also not raised any objection regarding kind of crop at the time of receiving premium amount form op no.2 bank or at any point of time after insurance of crop of complainant or during the pendency of present complaint and has simply averred that if any mistake is done by bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount. Since insurance company op no.1 which has received premium and retained the premium and has not refunded the premium to the op no.2 bank or to the complainant and has also not raised any objection regarding kind of crop, therefore, op no.1 insurance company which has retained premium amount for insuring the crop of complainant is also deficient in service. As such, both the ops no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said claim amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 besides payment of compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. However, complaint against op no.3 is liable to be dismissed.
14. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint qua opposite parties no.1 and 2 and direct them to pay claim amount of Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 05.09.2019 till actual realization to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. We also direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the ops no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the C.P. Act, 2019 against ops no.1 and 2. However, complaint qua op no.3 stands dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 26.07.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
