BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 346 of 2019
Date of Institution : 01.07.2019
Date of Decision : 05.03.2021.
Budhram son of Roopram aged about 35 years, resident of village Rampura Bagria (Nawabad), Tehsil N.S. Chopata and District Sirsa (HR).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Oriental General Insurance Company Limited, Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Road New Delhi Pin 110002.
2. HDFC Bank Branch Ding Mandi through its Manager village Ding Mandi District Sirsa (HRY).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. RAGHBIR SINGH………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……..…… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, 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.
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is resident of village Rampura Bagria (Nawabad) and is farmer by profession. He is having 3/10th share in agricultural land measuring 55 Kanal comprised in Khewat No. 58 Khatoni No. 80 Killa No. 24//24/2(0-4), 25//25(0-2), 26//1(6-1), 2(7-11), 3(7-11), 4/1/2(4-19), 6(7-12), 7 to 9 (24-0), 10(7-2), 11(7-12), 12 to 14 (24-0), 15(7-12), 26//16(7-12), 17 to 19 (24-0), 20(7-18), 21 to 24 (32-0), 25(7-12) situated in the revenue estate of village Rampura Bagria (Wawbad), District Sirsa. That he is a Kisan Credit Card holder in HDFC Bank op no.2 vide account No. 50200027801500. It is further averred that as per notification of Government of India, all the Kisan Credit Card account holders are required to get their crop insured through their respective banker where they are maintaining KCC account and accordingly op no.2 deducted premium of Rs.3499.20 on 31.7.2018 from the KCC account of complainant on account of premium for insurance of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018. In this way, complainant got insured the cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 with op no.1 through op no.2. It is further averred that premium was deducted by op no.2 from his account on the cutoff date of the deposition of premium and when complainant confirmed from op no.2 regarding insurance premium, he was told that their premium has been deposited with op no.1. That cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 season was damaged and other farmers of village Rampura Bagria (Nawbad) have received insurance claim at the rate of Rs.6450/- per acre but the complainant did not receive any insurance claim in this regard. It is further averred that complainant approached the ops with the requests to pay the insurance claim but so far no insurance claim has been released to him and the ops have caused harassment and deficiency in service towards him. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections and also clarified about objective of the scheme. 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, conocted 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, it is submitted that op no.1 used to do the insurance of crop on the information supplied by the bank i.e. op no.2 and there is no direct contract in between the complainant and op no.1 as the present crop insurance is done under the group insurance scheme as per the terms and conditions of the Pardhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna. It is submitted that answering op had never received the premium for the insurance of the crop in the land of complainant situated in village Rampura Bagrian (Nawbad) and the same was not insured with answering op. The banker of the complainant has uploaded the name of the village as Patli Dabar in place of Rampura Bagarian (Nawbad) on the National Crop Insurance Portal wrongly and did not make any effort to rectify the mistake and to correct the name of village in the Portal before the closure of the Portal. After the closure of the portal, no correction can be made. The eligible farmers of village Rampura Bagarian (Nawbad), whose crops were damaged have been paid for the loss of the crops. It is further submitted that crops in the land of complainant being situated in village Patli Dabar, he is not entitled to any claim for loss of his crops. It is further submitted that answering op cannot be held responsible for the wrongs committed by op no.2. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied to be wrong and dismissal of complaint prayed for.
4. Opposite party no.2 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no cause of action, no consumer dispute, concealment of material facts etc. On merits, the paras no.1 to 5 of the complaint have been admitted. It is submitted that as per clause 19(XXII) of Haryana Govt. Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department Notification No.941-Agri-II(I)-2018/4332 dated 30.3.2018, “The Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the State Govt. failing which no objection by the Insurance Company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim”. In the present case insurance company has accepted the premium without any objection and has never refunded the same. In this case it is presumed that insurance company has insured the crops of complainant after accepting the premium. It is further submitted that complainant never visited answering op regarding insurance claim. Moreover, matter regarding payment of compensation is between complainant and op no.1. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. The complainant has also placed on record copy of pass book Ex.C2 with statement of acocunt, copy of statement of account of Gulab Singh Ex.C3, copy of pass book of Ghirdhari Ex.C4, copy of adhar card Ex.C5, copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C6, copy of letter Ex.C7, report of Assistant Statistical Officer office of DDA Sirsa Ex.C8, copy of notification of Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department dated 30.3.2018 Ex.C9. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. S.K. Malhotra, Divisional Manager as Ex.R1. OP no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R2 and copy of statement of account Ex.R3. OP no.1 then also tendered copy of details of farmers whose crops were insured as Ex.R4.
8. According to the complainant, he owns agricultural land in village Rampura Bagria (Nawbad), District Sirsa and this fact is also proved from copy of jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C6. It is proved on record that complainant is holding KCC account with op no.2. It is also proved on record from the copy of statement of account (Ex.C2 at page no.2) that on 31.7.2018, an amount of Rs.3499.20 was deducted from his account by op no.2 bank and said amount was credited in the account of op no.1 insurance company for insuring the cotton crop of the complainant for the kharif, 2018.
9. The grievance of the complainant is that his cotton crop for the kharif, 2018 season was damaged and other farmers of village Rampura Bagria (Nawbad) having land in the revenue estate of village Rampura Bagria (Nawbad), District Sirsa have received insurance claim against the cotton crop damage for kharif, 2018 season at the rate of Rs.6450/- per acre but complainant has not received any insurance claim till today. The complainant in order to prove damage to his cotton crop for kharif, 2018 has placed on record report of Assistant Statistical Officer, office of Agriculture Department, Sirsa as Ex.C8 according to which threshold yield of Block Nathusari Chopta for kharif, 2018 is 561.06 Kg. Lint. per Hectare and average yield of village Rampura Bagrian for Kharif, 2018 is 428.53 Kg. Lint per Hectare. The complainant has also placed on file copy of notification of Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department dated 30.3.2018 which has come into existence for implementation of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) in the State during Kharif 2018 and Rabi 2018-19 and as per Clause 15(b) of said notification of Haryana Government “shortfall in yield will be calculated by comparing the threshold yield with the actual yield estimated through crop cutting experiments (CCEs).” Since as per report of Assistant Statistical Officer of Agriculture Department, the average yield of village Rampura Bagrian (Block Nathusari Chopta) for kharif, 2018 is less than threshold yield of Block Nathusari Chopta for kharif, 2018, so according to above said criteria given in clause 15(b) of the notification, there was damage to the cotton crop of village Rampura Bagrian for kharif, 2018 and as such other farmers of this village received insurance claim amount for damage to their crops. Therefore, it is proved on record that there was also loss to the cotton crop of complainant.
10. Now we see whether op no.1 insurance company, op no.2 bank or both the ops are liable to pay insurance claim for damages to the crops of complainant in village Rampura Bagria and also compensation for harassment. According to the plea of op no.2 bank, as per clause 19(XXII) of Haryana Govt. Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department Notification No.941-Agri-II(I)-2018/4332 dated 30.3.2018, “The Insurance Company shall verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the State Govt. failing which no objection by the Insurance Company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the Insurance Company to pay the claim”. So, there is clear admission on the part of op no.2 bank that mistake regarding uploading of village name as Patli Dabar instead of actual village of complainant as Rampura Bagria has occurred on the part of op no.2 bank but the bank is shifting the liability on the part of op no.1 insurance company by taking the plea that insurance company was to verify the data of insured farmers. In Ex.R4 regarding details of farmers whose crops were insured, the particulars of complainant finds mention at Sr. No.19 and it has been shown by op no.1 that his crop in village Patli Dabar has been insured. No doubt, the bank has uploaded the wrong name of the village of the complainant at Portal but at the same time, the op no.1 insurance company has also failed to verify the data of the insured farmer as per above said clause of the Haryana Govt. Notification. The op no.1 has also retained the premium amount and has also not refunded the same. So, in our opinion the op no.1 who has received premium amount from the account of complainant is liable to pay the insurance claim amount for the damage to the cotton crop of the complainant of Kharif, 2018 and the op no.2 bank is liable to compensate the complainant for harassment for its negligence.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against both the opposite parties. We direct the opposite party no.1 insurance company to settle and pay the claim of the complainant for the damage of his cotton crop in village Rampura Bagria (Nawbad) District Sirsa for Kharif, 2018 as per his agricultural land and at par with other farmers of this village who have received claim amount for the damage of their cotton crop of Kharif, 2018. We direct the opposite party no.2 bank to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which their respective payable amounts will carry interest @7% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:05.03.2021. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
