BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 539 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 13.09.2019.
Date of Decision : 08.09.2023.
Pala Ram aged about 61 years son of Sh. Bhajna Ram, resident of village Ratanpura, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, Plot No. 3, Iffco Tower, 4 & 5th Floor Sector 29, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its M.D/ Authorized person.
2. HDFC Bank Limited Branch Mallekan, 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. Naresh Kalra, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kapil Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, 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 an agricultural having land measuring 20.50 acres comprised in Khewat No.68 situated at 13 KNM Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh and he is totally dependent upon agricultural income in all respects. That complainant is having KCC account bearing No. 50200010966157 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 or damage and an amount of Rs.27,216/- was deducted on 7.8.2018 by op no.2 as premium for insurance of crop of Kharif, 2018 from account of complainant and same was paid to op no.1. That complainant had sown crop of cotton in above said land which was damaged due to disaster of natural calamities (excessive rain) and insurance company has paid an amount of Rs.65,042/- as claim of damaged crop and it has come to his notice that other farmers of village 13 KNM have received Rs.20,000/- per acre but complainant received only Rs.65,042/-. It is further averred that thereafter, complainant contacted with op bank and came to know that land of complainant was shown in village 1 KM in its record instead of 13 KNM and insurance company paid the claim as per damages occurred in village 1 KNM, Tehsil Nohar, District Sirsa. That land of complainant is situated at 13 KNM and he is also entitled to insurance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.20,000/- approximately per bigha. It is further averred that complainant moved an application to op no.1 with regard to above discrepancy and he was assured to do needful action, but no action was taken on this application. The complainant also contacted on toll free numbers of office of Fasal Beema Yojna, but his all efforts have gone in vain. 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 tried their best to deprive the complainant from his right of getting insurance claim as per village 13 KNM, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh. That due to above said act and conduct of ops, the complainant has undergone harassment and mental agony as well as suffered financial loss. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. OP no.1 filed written version taking certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable and that complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. As per complaint, loss of crop has been affected at village 13 KNM which has not been insured by insurance company. As per declaration form submitted by Bank, village 1 KM was insured with insurance company, whereas complainant is claiming for coverage of village 13 KNM, which does not fall under coverage of policy scheme and thus, complaint is liable to be dismissed on both the grounds of non coverage of village and non coverage of crop as well. It is further submitted that it is clarified that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by the bank of the farmer. If any mistake is done by the bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount. As per clause 17 of operational guidelines, the insurance company is not liable for mistake of the bank and it is the responsibility of bank branch to complete the application of farmer. It is further submitted that as per loss assessed in village 1 KM, the insurance company has already paid the loss to the tune of Rs.65,042/- to the complainant on 13.08.2019 as per terms and conditions of insurance policy and as per the declarations submitted by the bank. In furtherance to this, the balance amount of Rs.12968/- has been processed and already transferred in the farmer’s account. It is also submitted that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint and complainant should have approached to DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and decision of said department would be binding on all State Government/ Insurance Company/ Banks and farmers. Other preliminary objections that insured has violated the terms and conditions of scheme, complainant has no cause of action or locus standi and complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties are also taken. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated and it is submitted that bank of complainant is responsible for all errors/ omissions as per clause 35.5.2.13 of operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that on the request of complainant, the answering op got the crops of complainant insured with op no.1 and accordingly a sum of Rs.27,216/- has been paid to op no.1 after deducting the same from the loan account of complainant. It is further submitted that insurance company has paid a sum of Rs.65,042/- on account of compensation to the complainant. That at the time of insurance of crops of complainant, the complainant was very much present in the bank and whatever particulars he supplied to answering op for the insurance purposes, the same were supplied to the insurance company. It is further submitted that answering op has not charged any penny on account of insurance from complainant, hence answering op is not liable to pay any compensation on account of loss of crops of complainant and it is op no.1 who has to indemnify the loss of complainant, if any. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. C1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Nitin Verma, General Manager as Ex.R1 and policy wording Ex.R2. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Manager Law as Ex.R3 and statement of account Ex.R4.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. The complainant has claimed insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in his 20.50 acres of land situated in village 13 KNM Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh, but however, complainant has not placed on file any report of agricultural department or any other agency to prove the loss of cotton crop in his land or in his said village 13 KNM. The complainant has also not placed on file any report of average yield of cotton crop of village 13 KNM and threshold yield of block of said village and he has also not placed on file any document to prove that what was the sum insured amount of cotton crop in Kharif, 2018 and in absence of the same, the loss of his cotton crop in his land in village 13 KNM cannot be assessed. Though, complainant has placed on file copy of pass book of one Ram Chandra as Ex.C8 to prove the fact that he has also received insurance claim amount for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 but however, from the said copy of pass book it is not evident that he has received insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop in the land situated in village 13 KNM. It is not proved on record by complainant that how much land said Ram Chandra owns in his village 13 KNM and how his claim of damage crop has been assessed and paid. In order to prove the loss of his cotton crop in village 13 KNM, the complainant was required to place on file either report of agricultural department regarding loss or affidavit of said Ram Chandra to prove that he was also having land in village KNM and specific assertions regarding claim amount received by him for specific land should have been given but complainant has failed to do so. The complainant has not placed on file affidavit of said Ram Chandra to prove the fact that how much land he was having in village 13 KNM and for how much amount per acre he has been given insurance claim. So in absence of any record of the loss to the complainant, no claim can be assessed by this Commission and complainant is not entitled to any other amount for not bringing material evidence on record regarding loss assessed by agricultural department based on threshold yield and average yield in the village where land of complainant is situated.
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 as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 08.09.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
