BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 355 of 2019
Date of Institution : 10.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 25.02.2020.
Santro @ Sumitra, aged about 53 years wife of Sh. Krishan Lal, resident of village Kheowali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Oriental Insurance Company, Janta Bhawan Road, Near Anaj Mandi, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Manager/ Proprietor.
2. Axis Bank Limited, Branch Kalanwali, District Sirsa through its Manager.
3. Deputy Director of Agriculture Department, Sirsa (Haryana).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. K.J. Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. O.P. Sihag, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO on behalf of opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is resident of village Kheowali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa but the agriculture land of complainant is situated in village Karamgarh, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa. That complainant is owner of 24 Kanals land comprised in Khatuni No. 468, Killa No. 21(8-0), Sq. No. 56 Killa No.1(8-0), 10(8-0). It is further averred that complainant is having account number with op no.2 bearing account number 915030026213879. That complainant sown crop of kharif, 2018 in the above said land and op no.1 insured the crop of complainant against the premium of Rs.1749.03. That cotton crop of complainant sown in above said land was completely destroyed. At the time of insurance, op no.1 gave assurance that they will make payment of Rs.18,000/- per acre in case the crop is destroyed. That complainant visited to the opposite parties for the claim amount for damage of his crop but the ops refused to make the payment of claim amount of Rs.54,000/- to the complainant and have caused financial loss and harassment to the complainant. It is further averred that as per Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna launched in year 2016, the crops of the farmers who have obtained loan from any financial institutions have to be mandatory insured and the premium is to be deducted from the loan account of the farmers by their respective bank and is to be refunded to the insurance company. It is further averred that if the insurance premium is refunded into the bank account of complainant on account of any fault of op no.2, then bank is liable to pay compensation to the complainant otherwise op no.1 is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. That all the ops have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment to the complainant. That complainant approached and requested the ops many times to admit her claim and to pay the amount of her damaged crop but the ops after putting of the matter on one pretext or the other have finally refused to admit the claim of complainant about a week back. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable on the ground of privity of contract as insurance scheme has been provided to bank and consideration for the services of insurance, if any is also to be received from bank only (in case of loanee farmer). In absence of any consideration or want of any written contract of insurance, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as complainant is unable to establish any direct relation with the insurance company and thus, complainant cannot be treated as consumer under definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone, more particularly when there is no insurance of kharif 2018 cotton crop of complainant of the land situated in village Karamgarh. That it is the duty of the banker for loanee farmer to ensure correct particulars to be uploaded in all respect with regard to the land village, crop, name etc. as required and covering the risk of only notified crop i.e. paddy, bajra, maize, cotton for kharif 2018 and wheat, gram, barley, mustard, sunflower for rabi, 2018-19, as bank is paid 4% charges on account of service charges on the premium collected from bank. The indemnity level will be 90% in case of all the crops, as per compliance of operational guidelines of PMFBY issued by Govt. of India. It is further submitted that present complaint is without any cause of action against answering op as answering op was/is not insurer of the alleged crop of complainant. Insurance company did not receive any premium either from bank or from complainant against the cotton crop of kharif 2018 of land of complainant situated in village Karamgarh, so question for payment by answering op against this very bank account referred and mentioned by complainant for the alleged loss/ damages to the crop does not arise. That complaint is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and present complaint is pre-mature as there is specific Grievance Redressal Mechanism. It is further submitted that according to Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna operational guidelines, insurance coverage will be strictly to be equallent to sum insured/ hectare with certain enclosures subject to compliance of terms and conditions. The State Govt. will notify crops and defined area covered during the season while notifying the crop yield will also be decided by the State Govt. That State Govt. shall also notify submission of insurance proposal/ application, declaration by bank, remitting of premium to insurance company, submission of yield data, claim assessment of loss. It is further submitted that in cases where crops are separately notified under irrigated, un-irrigated category by State Govt., sum insured for irrigated and un-irrigated areas should be separately indicated. Loss is payable to the farmer only when yield is less than the average calculated by the Competent Authority and not according to the desire of the individual farmer. There is no dispute about contract of insurance for Kharif & Rabi 2018 with answering op for the crops notified, but when premium has not been paid for the crops then no liability can be shifted upon answering op. On merits, it is submitted that answering op did not receive any premium against his very account number, name of farmer and land mentioned and referred by complainant. However, if bank has failed to pay the premium of insurance for getting the coverage of insurance of crop of complainant of said village, in that eventuality, answering op cannot be held liable to make payment of any damages, compensation to the complainant and in case of failure to get the insurance coverage by the banker by ensuring the payment of premium with correct data, detail record about name of farmer, crop, village etc. as per operational guidelines on the portal meant for this purpose, where from the record is taken by insurance company and coverage is done, then only bank is liable. On the portal there is no entry of coverage against the account number of complainant through the bank regarding the crop mentioned in the complaint. It is further submitted that no record of girdawari, inspection report, loss, insurance particular or intimation for the loss etc. has been placed on record. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.1749.03 as insurance premium was deducted from the account of complainant, but the crop of complainant could not be insured as the complainant did not get her aadhar card linked with her KCC account despite repeated requests made to her in this regard, therefore, the aforesaid amount was credited back to her account. It is further submitted that complainant never intimated answering op about the alleged loss to her crop. The complainant has not clarified as to how and in what manner, her standing crop got destroyed. The cause of damage to crop has not been mentioned by complainant. It is further submitted that it is correct that insurance premium is deducted by the bank from the crop loan account of farmers, but the insurance of crop is subject to linking of aadhar car with the account. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and for want of knowledge and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.3 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only after completion of necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme, which have already been given by answering op within specific time period as prescribed in the operational guidelines of the Government of India. The answering op always tried to make best efforts for welfare of the farmer, but cannot be beyond the operational guidelines issued under PMFBY and it is up to higher authorities as well as insurance company to settle the claim in question and complainant has wrongly impleaded the answering op as party. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 as well as ASO on behalf of op no.3 and have gone through the record carefully.
7. As per allegations of complainant, she was holding a KCC account with opposite party no.2 and it was mandatory for loanee farmers to get their crop insured with insurance company through their respective banks/ financial institution. Accordingly, op no.2 had deducted an amount of Rs.1749.03 from the account of complainant, but however, same was not paid to the insurance company as premium as a result of which crop of complainant could not be got insured by op no.2 from op no.1 and op no.2 is liable to pay claim of complainant. The complainant has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and mentioned her name in the affidavit as Santro @ Sumitra and has deposed and reiterated averments made in the complaint and has also tendered documents i.e. bank certificate e Ex.C1, copy of statement of account Ex.C2 and copy of jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 Ex.C3.
8. On the other hand, op no.3 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal as Ex.R1, copy of notification Ex.R2 and copy of village wise tabulation sheet Ex.R3. OP no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Sonu Dhaka, Branch Manager as Ex.RW4. OP no.1 has furnished affidavit of Sh. S.K. Mehta, Divisional Manager as Ex.R5 and copy of operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R6.
9. The perusal of bank certificate Ex.C1 reveals that account is in the name of Smt. Santro wife of Krishan Lal and election card placed on file is also in the name of Santro wife of Krishan Lal, but however, adhar card is in the name of Sumitra. Op no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Sonu Dhaka, Branch Manager as Ex.RW4 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the written statement. He has specifically deposed that insurance premium is deducted by bank from the crop loan account of farmer but insurance of crop is subject to linking of the adhar card with account. In this case, complainant did not get her adhar card linked with her KCC account despite their repeated requests, therefore, crop of complainant could not be got insured and amount of insurance premium earlier deducted was credited back to her account. As such she is not entitled for any insurance claim.
10. During course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.2 has produced copy of dispatch register to show that DD of Rs.1749.3 was sent to complainant. It is apparently clear from the copy of adhar card placed on record that same is in the name of Sumitra whereas loan account is in the name of Santro. So, it appears that due to this reason same could not be linked. Since premium was not paid to op no.1 by op no.2 as adhar card of complainant was not linked with KCC account of complainant, so complainant does not appear to be entitled for crop insurance claim.
11. In view of above discussion, it appears that complainant has failed to prove her allegations in the complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence. As such, 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 in open Forum. President,
Dated:25.02.2020. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
