District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.5/2021.
Date of Institution: 05.01.2021.
Date of Order: 12.08.2022.
Ram Wati Kumar S/o Shri Chander Bhan aged about 73 R/o village Sikrona sub-Tehsil Gaunchhi, District Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, First floor, SCO-17, sector-16, Faridabad – 121002, District Faridabad through its Branch/Divisional Manager/Principal Officer.
2. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Sikrona, Sub-Tehsil Gaunchhi, District Faridabad, through its Branch Manager.
3. Block Agriculture Officer, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. D.S.Dagar, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Dabaas, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Ashok Kaushik, counsel for opposite party No.2.
Sh. Arun Kumar, BAO on behalf of opposite party No.3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that Hon’ble Prime Minister of India launched an insurance policy for the insurance of the crops of the farmers and welfare of the farmers under the name and style “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” and the complaint got his crops of 1 hectare (2.5 Acre) situated in village Sikrona, Sub Tehsil Gaunchhi, District Faridabad insured under the said scheme PMFBY through opposite party No.1 for Ravi Fasal/wheat for the year 2017-18 and the complainant had paid the premium of Rs.908/- on 30.12.2017 which was deducted from the bank account bearing No.77110700000095 of the complainant maintained with opposite party No.2. Unfortunately, the crops of the complainant got damaged due to water lodging and wind rains in the month of April 2018 and intimation to this regard, was given to opposite party No.1 on representative alongwith opposite party No.3/Revenue official conducted the verification at the spot by and prepared the damage of the crops Damaged Report on 13.04.2018 and assessed the damage of the crops 55% to 60%. Thereafter, opposite party No.1 assured that the claim of the complainant made uncounted visits to the office of opposite party No.1. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. (in lump-sump) value of damaged crops as assessed alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of damage of crops till realization.
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the present complaint was not maintainable before this forum because the complainant had approached this forum with malafied intention even without approaching to grievance cell of government agencies as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme. It was not an individual insurance policy like other insurance policies rather it was a group insurance scheme in accordance with agreed terms and conditions of scheme which were binding on all of concerned related to the scheme. The complainant should have approached to DAC & FW (Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and farmer Welfare) 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. Whereas instead of filing complaint or grievance before DAC & FW (Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmer Welfare) the complainant had wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of this Forum with malafied 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. It was submitted that after inquiry from booking data base for the year 2017 as well as Govt. portal data by the insurance company, it was revealed that “Farmer – Ramwati W/o Shri Chander Bhan bearing A/c. No. 77110700000095 through Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Sikrona, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana was not insured with the insurance company because the insurance company could not able to find any detail with such combination uploaded by Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Sikrona on Govt. portal. Not only this, as per relevant provision of the operation guide line of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna as reproduced above, the insurance company had insured/booked under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna those farmers whose were details were available on Govt. portal. In this regard, Haryana Govt. Notification as well as letters from Joint Secretary Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department of agriculture & farmer welfare Krishi Bhawan New Delhi dated 12th July 2017 & 24th July 2017 were also self explanatory for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Fora. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that as the claim of the complainant was in respect of insurance of the crops and the complainant had only remedy/grievance against the opposite party No.1 and not against the opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 disbursed the premium of insurance policy in favour of opposite party No.1 on the direction, will and wish of the complainant, which the complainant admitted in para No.4of the complaint that “the complainant got his crops of 1 hectare (25) Acre) situate din village Sikrona, sunb-Tehsil Gaunchhi, District Faridabad insured under the said PMFBY through opposite party No.1 for Ravi Fasal/Wheat for the year 2017-18 and the complainant had padi the premium of rs.908/0 on 30.12.2017. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Opposite party No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the answering opposite party had done his duty as per norms and after receiving the information from Deputy Director of Agriculture, Faridabad on 09.04.2018 through a farmer’s complaint, the answering opposite party alongwith surveyor of opposite party No.1 had conducted survey and submitted the spot inspection report in respect of damages caused to the crop of the complainant/farmer immediately to the office of DDA, Faridabad. Opposite party No. 3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– ICICI Lombard Gen. Insurance co. & Others with the prayer to: a) pay the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. (in lump-sump) value of damaged crops as assessed alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of damage of crops till realization. b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
Shri D.S.Dagar, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that affidavit and documents already filed be read as evidence on behalf of complainant and closed the same. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of the complainant has been closed vide order dated 20.04.2022. Annexure C-1 – Bank statement, Annx.C-2 – Damaged report.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1strongly agitated
and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Rohan Mishra, Manager (Legal), M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.ltd., 4th floor, red Fort Capital Parsvnath Tower, Bhai veer Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, Ex.R-1 – letter dated 12.07.2017, Ex.R-2 – letter dated 24.07.2017,
Shri Ashok Kaushi, counsel for opposite party No.2 has made a statement that written statement filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 be read as evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2 and tender documents Ex.RW2/A – Account Ledger Inquiry, Ex.RW2/B – Account Ledger Inquiry,
Evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3 has not been filed despite availing several opportunities. Hence, the evidence of opposite party No.3 has been closed by the Court Order.
8. In this complaint, the complaint was filed with the prayer to pay the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (in lump sum) value of the damaged crops of area 1 hectare (2.5 Acre). The counsel for the complainant argued at length that the main issue was in this complaint for the non-issuance of the insurance policy objected by opposite party NO.1.
9. The counsel for the complainant argued at length and also agitated on the ground that the premium of policy has already been deducted from the account of the complainant form opposite party on 30.12.2017vide Ex.RW2/A.
10. There is no doubt that the amount of premium was deducted from the account of the complainant. It was the duty of the bank to issue the insurance policy of the crop. After inquiry from booking data base for the year 2017 as well as Govt. portal data by the insurance company, it was revealed that ”Farmer- – “Farmer – Ramwati W/o Shri Chander Bhan bearing A/c. No. 77110700000095 through Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Sikrona, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana was not insured with the insurance company because the insurance company could not able to find any detail with such combination uploaded by Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Sikrona on Govt. portal . In this way, the liability goes against opposite party No.2 i.e Bank and they will pay the damage of the crop as per assessment done by opposite party No.3 i.e.Block Agriculture Officer, Ballabgarh The complainant is suffering from 2018 till now.
11. After going through the evidence led by both the parties, there is no doubt that the premium was taken by the bank from the account of the complainant and as per the report of opposite party No.3 that the crop was damage 55-60%. There is no fault of the consumer/farmer. As per the policy of the PMFBY , the assessment of the crop per acre is approx. Rs.15,000/- and there was loss of 55-60%% and the compensation of the damaged crop should be given to the farmer as per the policy. Keeping in view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that opposite party No.2 is failed to establish their case. They did not submit the list of the insured farmers in their evidence. So the liability of the compensation goes against opposite party No.2.
12. After going through the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.23,000/- first to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a from the date of damage till its realization. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.3300/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to recover the above said amount from opposite party No.2. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 12.08.2022. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
