BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 212 of 2019
Date of Institution : 25.04.2019.
Date of Decision : 22.01.2020.
Mahender Singh aged about 52 years son of Shri Mahipat Ram, resident of Gali No.5, Kalyan Nagar, Begu Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Shah Satnam Ji Nagar, Sirsa District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, ABW Towers, Unit No.511-512, 5th Floor, M.G. Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurugram- 122001 through its Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………….MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Dipesh Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant owns and possess land measuring 16 kanals 2 marlas comprised in Khewat No.1873 and 2443 situated at village Shahpur Begu, Tehsil and District Sirsa. That complainant has availed KCC facility of Rs.two lacs against the said land from op no.1 vide account No.09895111003528. It is further averred that Government of India announced a crop insurance scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) for the agriculturists and as per the insurance scheme, a collaboration between the banks and insurance companies was done to insure the crops of the farmers who have availed KCC scheme from the bank. It is further averred that for the crops of kharif, 2016, the premium was deducted on 2.8.2016 by op no.1 from the above KCC account of complainant and crop was insured with the collaborated insurance company of the bank. That similarly for cotton crop of Kharif 2017, a sum of Rs.1117.41 was again deducted by op no.1 from the above KCC account of complainant on 31.7.2017 and this time, op no.1 had got insured the crop from op no.2 under the collaboration scheme and in case of any damage to the insured crop, the farmer is entitled to get indemnified his claim under the aforesaid scheme from the insurer of the crop. That at the time of deduction of insurance premium from the account of complainant, he asked the op no.1 to provide him the copy of insurance policy, but op no.1 did not supply the same stating that it might take sometime and that otherwise also the entry in the pass book/ statement of accounts regarding deduction of premium is a proof in the hands of account holder and on this assurance of op no.1, the complainant did not bother about the insurance policy papers in his name. It is further averred that unluckily, in the village the crop of Kharif, 2017 was destroyed/ damaged on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and similarly the crops of complainant has also been damaged on account of said natural calamities and therefore, he is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per acre. That complainant approached the ops and requested for the disbursement of claim but on all the occasions the ops asked the complainant to wait stating that process of claims take some time and meanwhile, the op no.1 again deducted premium in the month of December, 2017 for insurance of crop of Rabi 2017-2018 and also in the month of July and December, 2018 for the crop of Kharif 2018 and Rabi 2018-2019. It is further averred that even after passing of more than one and half year, the complainant did not get claim for damages of crop of kharif, 2017 whereas some of villagers have already got compensation within a year. That complainant immediately contacted at the office of op no.1 where he was told by the official of op no.1 that no claim has been received by op no.1 from op no.2 in this regard. It is further averred that even on being asked time and again, the ops have failed to show any reason for non indemnification of claim of complainant. The complainant is legally entitled to get claim of damage of cotton crop of kharif, 2017 at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre from the ops. That complainant further approached the ops and requested them to compensate him under the said scheme of Government, but the ops about a week ago flatly refused to admit the genuine claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op has deducted Rs.1117.41 for crop insurance of kharif 2017 from the bank account of complainant, which was transferred in the account of op no.2 insurance company and this manner, kharif 2017 crop of complainant was insured with op no.2, which is clear from the statement of account of complainant. The op no.2 is liable to pay the compensation on account of alleged damage of crop of complainant, if any. The answering op is not responsible for payment of any compensation to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 also filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Shahpur, Tehsil and 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 himself 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 farmers. 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 involved 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. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of jamabandi Ex.C1, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C2, copy of pass book Ex.C3, copy of certificate Ex.C4, Ex.C5, copy of adhar card Ex.C6 and copy of voter card Ex.C7. On the other hand, op no.1 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Kundan Chaudhary, Branch Manager as Ex.RW1/A, copy of transfer detail of amount Ex.R1, copy of status report Ex.R2 and copy of statement of account Ex.R3. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities including last opportunities.
7. It is proved on record that complainant was holding a KCC account bearing No. 09895111003528 with the opposite party no.1 and he had sown cotton crop in his field in kharif, 2017 which was got insured by him from op no.2 through op no.1 on payment of premium which was deducted from the account of complainant Mahender Singh which is evident from copy of statement of account Ex.C3 and copy of certificate issued by the op no.1 bank Ex.C4. It is also proved on record that this amount of Rs.1117.41 was transferred by op no.1 to op no.2 which is evident from the copy of transfer detail and copy of statement of account Ex.R1 and Ex.R3.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.1 has taken the plea that they have deducted amount of premium and transferred same to op no.2 and this fact finds corroboration from copy of transfer detail Ex.R1. So, there is no liability of op no.1 to pay any compensation. So, it appears from the evidence on record that complaint of complainant does not appear to be maintainable against op no.1 and same is hereby dismissed against op no.1.
9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has placed on record copy of letter dated 8.11.2019 of Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department, Sirsa issued to the complainant in which it is mentioned that average yield of village Shahpur Begu in Kharif 2017 was 101.91 Kg. per Hect. and threshold yield was 640.90 Kg per Hect. and from the same it appears that there was loss of crop in village Shahpur Begu where agricultural land of complainant is situated. The complainant has also placed on record copy of pass book of one Mr. Shri Chand son of Mahipat to show that said Shri Chand has received compensation from insurance company for the damage of crop. As such, complainant has proved his case against opposite party no.2.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against opposite party no.2 and direct the op no.2 to settle and pay the claim of the complainant for the damage of his cotton crop of kharif, 2017 at par with other farmers of village Shahpur Begu (or of block who have already received compensation) within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the payable amount from the date of order till actual payment. We further direct the opposite party no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated:22.01.2020. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
