BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 26 of 2019
Date of Institution : 22.01.2019.
Date of Decision : 25.09.2019.
Subhash Chander aged 50 years son of Brijlal, resident of village Panniwala Mota, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Hometell Hotel,, Chandigarh.
- Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Haryana.
- HDFC Bank Sangwan Building, Near Canara Bank Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER.
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Mandeep Singh, Statistical Assistant on behalf of opposite party No.2.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The case of complainant in brief is that complainant is a farmer by profession and is owner of agricultural land and cultivates the land of his own. As per Government notification, after the introduction of crop insurance scheme, every farmer was informed by the concerned bank to give the details of their crop for the season so that the crop can be insured against the various natural calamities. It is further averred that complainant has provided the documents and details as demanded by op no.3 and on satisfaction, the op no.3 had deducted the premium from the account of complainant. The complainant is having his account with op no.3 bearing account number 50200013365639. The complainant had got insured crop of his 14 acres of land for which op no.3 had deducted the amount of Rs.7038/- from the account of complainant on 31.7.2018 and a confirmation message regarding insurance of his crop with op no.1 was also sent on his mobile. It is further averred that crop of complainant was insured at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per acre alongwith interest. That op no.2 had visited to the village of complainant and examined that the damage is caused in the village from the calamity. That in the year 2017, the crop of complainant was completely damaged due to white fly and other natural disaster, which is full covered under the Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for which the complainant had paid the premium and which was duly accepted by op no.1 and op no.3. It is further averred that complainant informed about the damage to ops and to the surprise of complainant, the op no.1 stated that amount has not been submitted/ transferred with them. The complainant had narrated that amount has been already deducted by op no.3 from his account. The op no.1 denied the receipt of such payment and sent him to op no.3. It is further averred that complainant visited to op no.3 for getting the details of his premium on which it was malafidely stated that premium was refunded back in his account on 11.8.2017 without any genuine reason. That the complainant got shocked and enquired about the matter and stated that no such intimation was given to the complainant about returning of the amount in his bank. The complainant enquired about the use of amount of complainant by op no.1 and op no.3 for so many days but they did not give any answer. The complainant visited to ops no.1 and 3 many times in this regard but to no effect. That complainant is wholly dependent upon the crop production. The ops malafidely refused to pay the insured amount to the complainant and being a poor farmer he had suffered a huge loss and also suffered mental agony due to the act and conduct of the ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising preliminary objections. It is submitted 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 & DW 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/ Banks and farmers. It is further submitted that complainant 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 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 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 party no.2 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections as taken by op no.1. It is submitted that op no.2 is only liable to conduct the crop cutting experience and also made its report according to CCE’s and which is prescribed in the operational guidelines issued by the Government of India under PMFBY. It is further submitted that yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only and on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme, which have already been given by op no.2 within specific time period. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 prayed for.
4. Opposite party no.3 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op earlier got insured the crops of complainant with op no.1. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.7038/- on account of insurance premium was transferred from the account of complainant to op no.1 but on 11.8.2017 the complainant visited the bank premises. He was very much annoyed and he asked official/ Incharge of the Bank why he has debited the insurance premium in his account because he has not authorized him to get his crop insured and transfer any amount on account of insurance premium to any insurance company. On the asking of complainant, the answering op appraised the facts of the RBI instructions to the complainant but all in vain. Thereafter, he categorically asked the answering op to get the insurance of the crop of complainant cancelled immediately and reverse the amount of premium to his account failing which the answering op shall face the consequences. Keeping in view the circumstances and threat given by complainant, the answering op got cancelled insurance application and reversed the amount of premium charged from complainant in his presence. All other contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant, learned counsel for opposite party no.1, Sh. Mandeep Singh, SA on behalf of op no.2 and learned counsel for op no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of statement of account Ex.C1, copy of jamabandi Ex.C2, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture Ex.R1, copy of notification of Haryana Government Ex.R2 and copy of village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim Ex.R3. OP no.3 produced affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Manager Law as Ex.R4, copy of authorization/ declaration and undertakings Ex.R5, copy of statement of account Ex.R6. Op no.1 did not produce any document.
8. The complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that he is owner of the land measuring 14 acres and got insured his crop from op no.1 through op no.3 for which op no.3 had deducted a sum of Rs.7038/- from the account of complainant on 31.7.2018. The complainant has not mentioned the killa number, khasra number or khewat number of the land which is owned and possessed by him in which he has sown crops. He has further not mentioned which land of complainant was inspected by officials of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa in order to assess loss of the crop. The perusal of para no.8 of the complaint reveals that complainant has not even mentioned name of the crop which was sown by him in the year 2017 and which was damaged due to natural calamities or by white fly.
9. As per version of complainant, an amount of Rs.7038/- was deducted by the bank/ op no.3 from his bank account on 31.7.2018 and same was refunded by bank in his account on 11.8.2017 whereas as per statement of account, amount was deducted on 31.7.2017 and same was refunded to the complainant on 11.8.2017.
10. The op bank has relied upon authorization/ declaration and undertaking of the complainant addressed to the bank as Ex.R5 by which it has been mentioned that Bank has sanctioned a loan of Rs.15,70,000/- by way of crop loan for cultivation of the crops. As per your bank’s policy crop insurance is a pre condition. However, he is not interested in incurring expenditure on crop insurance premium. So, it appears from this document Ex.R5 that after receiving this declaration from the complainant, the amount of Rs.7038/- was refunded in the account of complainant on 11.8.2017 meaning thereby that crop of complainant was never got insured by complainant himself. As such complaint of complainant does not appear to be maintainable for seeking compensation for the loss of crop in the year 2017.
11. In view of our above discussion, 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:25.09.2019. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
