BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 488 of 2019
Date of Institution : 20.08.2019.
Date of Decision : 10.06.2022.
Balram aged about 64 years son of Sh. Kesra Ram, resident of village Keharwala, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. 4th Floor, the Statement Building, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh.
2. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Branch Rania District Sirsa through its Manager/ authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………….…MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA………. MEMBER
Present: Sh. V. P. Rar, 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 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 complainant is that complainant is agriculturist having agricultural land measuring 75 kanals 17 marlas (as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) situated in village Keharwala, Tehsil Rania District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 and he is wholly dependent upon agricultural income. That he is having account bearing No. 81688800009691 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 insured with op no.1 against loss, damages of crop and accordingly an amount of Rs.4071.21 was deducted on 31.07.2017 as premium by OP no.2 from the account of complainant and amount was paid to op no.1 for the insurance of crop. That complainant had sown crop of cotton in above said land in year 2017 which was damaged due to disaster of natural calamities and therefore, complainant is entitled to insurance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- approximately at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre. It is further averred that ops have shown crop of vegetables due to clerical/ intentional mistake and as a result of discrepancy regarding the kind of crop, op no.1 refused to pay insurance claim to the complainant. At the time of availing KCC limit, complainant had also delivered khasra girdawari of cotton crop to op no.2. 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 to no effect. 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 Keharwala, Tehsil Rania 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 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 farmer. 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.2 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has applied to the answering op for providing him financial assistance of Rs.4,00,000/- as KCC limit vide application dated 11.07.2011. He has proposed in his application that he will sow crop of paddy in Kharif. The op no.2 has provided him facility of cash credit on the viability of paddy crop. If he has changed the crop, then it was duty to inform the ops. The op no.2 has paid the premium to insurance company for insurance of proposed crop. The insurance company has not raised any objection and accepted the premium for insurance of crop of complainant. Hence, op no.1 is liable to compensate the complainant regarding any loss caused to complainant and if his crop was not insured, then it was duty of op no.1 to make refund of the amount of premium. After acceptance of premium by op no.1, the matter of payment of compensation is between op no.1 and complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant has tendered his affidavit as Ex.C1, copy of statement of account Ex.C2, copy of certificate of bank Ex.C3, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C4, and copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C5.
6. On the other hand, Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Naveen Kumar, Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1, application form for agricultural credit Ex.R2 and copy of statement of account Ex.R3 and transaction ID Ex.R4.
7. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. However, he has not placed on file any report of agriculture department or any other survey report from concerned agency regarding damage to his any of the crop of Kharif, 2017. So, it can not be presumed that there was damage to his crop of Kharif, 2017. Moreover, in the application form for agricultural credit Ex.R2 submitted by him for availing KCC limit from op no.2 bank, the complainant proposed that he will sow paddy crop in Kharif and accordingly KCC limit was granted to him by op no.2 bank. Thereafter, if complainant has changed the crop of cotton from paddy crop, then he should have informed the op no.2 bank so that his cotton crop could be insured. Since cotton crop of complainant was not got insured by complainant nor any intimation qua change of pattern of crop was ever given by complainant to op bank and even no report of damage of any alleged crop has been placed on file, 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.
10. 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 Member President,
Dated: 10.06.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
