BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 521 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 09.09.2019.
Date of Decision : 09.05.2023.
Tara Chand, aged about 54 years son of Shri Ram Singh, resident of village Kotli, Tehsil and District Sirsa. Mobile No. 94168-07899.
……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. HDFC Bank Branch Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
...…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
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. R.D. Bishnoi, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017.
2. The complainant has alleged that he is an agriculturist having his agricultural land (in joint share as detailed in para No.1 of the complaint) situated in village Kotli, Tehsil and District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 and is wholly dependent upon the agricultural income in all respects. He is having his account bearing No. 50200012750428 with op no.2. It is further averred that an amount of Rs.9244.95 was deducted by op no.2 on 31.07.2017 from account of complainant for insurance of his crop of Kharif, 2017 with op no.1 under Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna. That crop of cotton sown in about 18 acres of land was damaged due to disaster of white bees and other natural calamities and complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs.9,00,000/- approximately at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre. It is further averred that op no.2 in its record has shown paddy crop due to clerical/ intentional mistake and as a result of this discrepancy, the ops have refused to pay insurance claim to the complainant. It is further averred that to get his insurance claim the complainant submitted an application to op no.2 but to no effect and despite his all 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 the act and conduct of the ops amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled to the insurance claim alongwith interest besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed its written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage of alleged loss, insurance company cannot be questioned for proposal related disputes, not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, non intimation, 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 etc. It is also submitted that in the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for cotton crop but the 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 and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that no intimation ever received regarding the loss of crop from the complainant as well as any other agencies and version of complainant that he approached to the officers of op no.1 is false one. However, the claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss occurred due to Rains but 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. It is also 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/ Banks and farmers. But instead of filing complaint or grievance before DAC & FW department, the complainant has approached this Forum with bad intention by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme and thus, present complaint cannot be adjudicated before this Forum in absence of filing of complaint before appropriate agency by the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that at the time of advancement of loan to complainant by answering op, the complainant had declared the pattern of crop for his land as paddy-wheat. The complainant had never informed the bank regarding the change of the pattern of the crop. The bank has debited the amount of Rs.9244.95 on 31.07.2017 from the account of complainant and has credited the same to the account of op no.1 as premium of the insurance. All the information required by op no.1 was sent to the insurance company as per rules. On merits also, it is submitted paddy crop was insured. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11.
6. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager as Ex.R1 and copies of documents Ex. R2 and Ex.R3. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. Though complainant has claimed insurance claim amount for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 but the perusal of statement of account of complainant placed on file by complainant as Ex.C11 as well as Ex.R2 placed on file by op no.2 bank, it is evident that on 31.7.2017, amount of Rs.9244.95 as insurance premium was deducted by op no.2 bank for insuring the paddy crop of Kharif, 2017 of the complainant. In this regard, op no.2 bank has taken a specific plea that at the time of advancement of loanb to the complainant, the complainant had declared the pattern of crop of his land as paddy and wheat and thereafter complainant had never informed the bank regarding the change of pattern of his crop. From the loan application placed on file by op no.2 bank Ex.R3, it is also evident that at the time of taking agricultural loan, the complainant declared the pattern of his crop as paddy in kharif season and wheat in rabi season and accordingly at the viability of paddy crop, the loan amount was sanctioned and paid to the complainant. The complainant has not proved on record through any reliable and cogent evidence that after availing of loan amount he ever informed the bank about the change of pattern of crop. If has changed the pattern of crop as cotton from paddy crop, then he should have informed the op no.2 bank, so that his cotton crop could be insured with the insurance company. Since cotton crop of complainant was not got insured by op no.2 bank nor any intimation qua change of pattern of crop was ever given by complainant to op no.2 bank, it appears that complainant is not entitled for loss of cotton crop which was not duly insured with insurance company and for which premium was not deducted by op bank. As the loan amount was taken by complainant for paddy crop and no intimation regarding change of crop by him has been given to the op no.2 bank, therefore, complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct.
9. In view of 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: Member President,
Dated: 09.05.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
