BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 369 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 12.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 07.07.2022.
Suresh Kumar, aged about 38 years son of Shri Mahabir, resident of village Kheri, Tehsil and District Sirsa. Mobile No. 99968-01118.
……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- 160002 through its Manager.
2. State Bank of India, Branch village Kagdana, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa, District 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. Mahesh Pareek, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
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 in joint share (as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) situated in village Kheri, Sub Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, 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. 36900884161 with op no.2. It is further averred that as per scheme of Central Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna, the crops sown in the land of complainant was insured with op no.1 against loss, damages of crop due to natural causes and accordingly an amount of Rs.3632/- was deducted on 29.7.2017 as premium by op no.2 from the account of complainant and was transferred to the account of op no.1 for the insurance of crops. That complainant had sown crop of cotton in about eight acres of land in year 2017 which was damaged due to disaster of white bees and other natural calamities and therefore, complainant is entitled to insurance amount of Rs.2,40,000/- approximately at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre but he has not been paid any insurance amount. It is further averred that complainant has made his all best efforts to get insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 but ops are adamant not to release the claim amount to the complainant and have caused harassment as well as mental agony to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. 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 Kheri, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta 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. Opposite party no.2 filed written version submitting therein that as per the term of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY scheme), which was launched by Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on 13.2.2016, for the farmers who have sought crop loan from any Financial Institutions, it was mandatory for the Banks to insure all the borrowers under the scheme. The premium of the insurance was to be deducted from the account and was to be paid to op no.1 insurance company by the bank. In the present case, the bank has debited an amount of Rs.3632/- on 29.07.2017 from the account of complainant and has credited the same to the account of op no.1 as premium of insurance, but the information required by op no.1 was not uploaded in the portal of the insurance company for want of aadhar card. The amount remitted to the insurance company has not been refunded by op no.1 to the answering op. It is further submitted that after debit of amount of premium in the account of complainant, the complainant alongwith the office bearer of Kisan Union visited the bank premises and showed their grievance regarding transfer of amount for insurance of the crops as they had not authorized the bank to get their crop insured. They were advised to deposit the aadhar card within the bank as insurance was necessary on the instructions from Govt. of India, but they refused to get the crop insured. As such the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint against answering op. It is further submitted that mere sanctioning/ disbursement of crop loan and submission of proposals/ declaration and remittance of premium by farmer/bank without explicit intent to raise the crop does not constitute acceptance of risk by insurance company. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
5. 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.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, copy of jamabandi Ex.P1, copy of his pass book Ex.P2 and bank detail of complainant 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. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Singh Handa, Branch Manager as Ex.R4, copy of statement of account Ex.R5.
8. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties 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.PW1/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 Kheri, 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 pass book Ex.P2, from which it is proved on record that on 29.7.2017, an amount of Rs.3632/- 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 cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. According to complainant, as insured cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 was damaged, he is entitled to insurance claim amount from ops. The op no.3 i.e. agricultural department who 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 Nathusari was 607.14 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 Kheri under the Block Nathusari was 219.45 Kgs. per hectare and as the actual yield of cotton crop of village Kheri under the Block Nathusari was less than threshold yield of Nathusari block, there was loss to the cotton crop of village Kheri 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 about eight acres of land was damaged, therefore, he is entitled to insurance claim amount of Rs.2,40,000/- approximately i.e. at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre. But we are of the considered opinion said amount claimed by complainant is excessive and exaggerated and in similar other cases of loss of insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in the area of complainant, we have assessed loss to the amount of Rs.16,500/- to Rs.17,000/- per acre and therefore, complainant is entitled to lumpsum amount of Rs.1,35,000/- for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 in his eight acres of land. Since the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 was duly insured with op no.1 insurance company by paying premium amount and op no.1 insurance company has not raised any objection at that time and has never refunded insurance premium amount either to complainant or to his banker i.e. op no.2, therefore, complainant is entitled to insurance claim amount from op no.1 only and no liability of remaining ops i.e. ops no.2 and 3 is made out. Moreover, op no.1 insurance company has not led any evidence in support of its plea and has not placed on file any loss assess report, copy of insurance policy containing terms and conditions and has also not placed on record any letter regarding rejection of claim of complainant. Further more, op no.1 in its written statement has admitted the factum of insurance of crop of complainant and therefore, non payment of claim amount to the complainant by op no.1 insurance company clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of op no.1 towards the complainant. As such, complainant is entitled to the above said amount of Rs.1,35,000/- from op no.1 insurance company besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
12. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 12.07.2019 till actual realization to the complainant for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. We also direct the opposite party no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses. The opposite party no.1 is directed 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 op no.1. However, complaint qua ops no.2 and 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:07.07.2022. District Consumer Disputes
JK Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
