BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 446 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 07.08.2019.
Date of Decision : 11.10.2022.
Om Parkash aged about 56 years son of Sh. Shera Ram, resident of village Keharwala, District Sirsa.
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. 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 (as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR……………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Rajesh Khaleri, 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 he is an agriculturist having land measuring 44 kanals 15 marlas (as detailed in para no.1 of complaint) situated in village Keharwala, Tehsil Rania District Sirsa as per jamabandi for year 2012-2013 and is wholly dependent upon agricultural income in all respects. He is having his account bearing no. 81688800011915 with op no.2. On 31.07.2017, an amount of Rs. 2876.44 was deducted by op no.2 from said account of complainant and was paid to op no.1 for insuring his crop with op no.1 under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna. The complainant sown crop of cotton in whole of land in Kharif, 2017 which was damaged due to disaster of natural calamities and he is entitled to the insurance claim amount of Rs.2,80,000/- approximately at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre as per above said scheme. That ops in their record have shown paddy crop due to clerical/ intentional mistake and as a result of this discrepancy regarding kind of crop, the insurance company has refused to pay insurance claim to the complainant in respect of his damaged crop of cotton. It is further averred that at the time of availing KCC limit, the complainant had delivered the khasra girdawari of cotton crop to op no.2 and complainant only cultivates cotton crop because no other crop is sown in his field. It is further averred that to get insurance claim, the complainant submitted an application to op no.2 with regard to above said discrepancy and he was assured to do needful but to no effect. That 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 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, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage of alleged loss, insurance company cannot be quested for proposal related disputes, not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, 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 further submitted 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 complainant or by bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied. It is submitted that claim of complainant was rejected as crop loss occurred due to rains but the same is not leading to Inundation which is covered for loss under the scheme and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has proposed in his loan application that he will sow crop of paddy in kharif. Hence, an amount of Rs.2876.44 has been debited to the account of complainant and was paid to the op no.1 for insurance of kharif crop of complainant as proposed. It is further submitted that if complainant has changed the crop, then it is his duty to inform the answering op so crop of cotton could have been insured. Moreover, at the time of insurance it was the duty of officials of op no.1 to visit the field of complainant and if they do not find the crop of paddy, then it was their duty to refund the premium received by them or change the crop in their record as found on the spot. Once insurance company has accepted the premium for insurance of crop of complainant, then it is presumed that crops of complainant have been insured and the insurance company is liable for any damage to the crops of complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. The complainant produced the documents with the complaint but did not tender any document in evidence despite availing opportunities.
6. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sushil Chander, Manager as Ex.R1 copy of application for agricultural loan Ex.R2 and copy of statement of account Ex.R3. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing opportunities.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. The complainant is claiming insurance claim amount for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. However, op no.2 bank has taken a specific stand that complainant has proposed in his loan application that he will sow crop of paddy in Kharif. Accordingly, premium amount of Rs.2876.44 was debited from his account and was paid to op no.1 for insurance of kharif crop of complainant as proposed. It is further case of op no.2 bank that if complainant has changed the crop then it was his duty to inform the bank so that his crop of cotton could have been insured. The op no.2 bank has also placed on file application for agriculture loan as Ex.R2 which is duly signed by the complainant, the perusal of which reveals that at the time of taking loan from the op no.2 bank, the complainant declared the pattern of crop as paddy in Kharif season and wheat in Rabi season and at the viability of paddy crop, the loan amount was sanctioned by the bank to the complainant and cash credit facility is being given to him on annual basis on the viability of paddy crop. The complainant has not placed on file any document to show that he ever informed the op no.2 bank regarding change of pattern of his crop. The complainant has not proved its version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence in the shape of his affidavit or any other reliable documents. 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 insured with insurance company and for which premium was not deducted by op no.2 bank. If the complainant changed the crop from paddy to cotton, intimation of change of crop should have been given by the complainant to the op no.2 bank. Since, no intimation regarding change of crop 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 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 free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 11.10.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
