BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 344 of 2019
Date of Institution : 01.07.2019
Date of Decision : 05.03.2021.
Bhupender son of Om Parkash, aged about 29 years, resident of village Gigorani, 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 through its Manager, Branch Sangwan Building, Near Canara Bank, Dr. Sangwan Chowk Sirsa.
...…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 farmer by profession and having joint KCC account in HDFC Bank with his father. That complainant and his father are having 58.4 kanals of agricultural land. The complainant is owner in possession of 1/4th share in Khewat No.285 Khatoni No. 364 Killa No. 27//6(5-9), 7(4-2), 14 to 17(32-0), 24 to 25 (16-0), 31//4 to 7(32-0) and his father is owner in possession of 36 kanals in Khewat No. 287 Khatoni No. 366 Killa No.103//19/2(4-0), 20 to 21(16-0), 22//1 (4-0), 113//1(8-0), 2/2(4-0) situated in the revenue estate of village Gigorani, District Sirsa. He is having Kisan Credit Card account with op no.2 bank bearing No. 50200010704771. It is further averred that as per notification of Government of India, all the Kisan Credit Card 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.4219.20 on 14.8.2018 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. 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 Gigorani have received insurance claim at the rate of Rs.17,350/- per acre but the complainant did not receive any insurance claim yet. 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. In the written statement 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, concocted 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 damaged 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 every farmer who wants to get the benefits of KCC, then he should have compulsorily get the insurance under the scheme of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, rest of the contents of complaint are denied, because no intimation ever received by op from any authorized agency or bank. It is further submitted that in the present complaint, the premium was deducted from the KCC account of the complainant on 14.08.2018 whereas according to the provisions of the operation guidelines of the scheme, cut off date for deduction of the premium was 31.7.2018. As the premium was deducted from the KCC account of complainant much later than cut off date, his crop was not insured and his account particulars for the purpose of insurance were not uploaded on the Portal of PMFBY by the Nodal Bank. It is further 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.2 as the present crop insurance is done under the group insurance scheme as per the terms and conditions of the scheme. It is further submitted that answering op had never received the premium for the insurance of the crop in the land of complainant situated in village Gigorani and same was not insured with answering op. The eligible farmers of village Gigorani, whose crops were damaged have been paid for the loss of the crops. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
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. In reply to para no.6 of the complaint, it is submitted that premium for insurance has been accepted by op no.1 for the insurance of Kharif crop of complainant. It is further 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 the 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 prayed for.
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 statement of account Ex.C1, copy of jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 Ex.C2, copy of pass book Ex.C3, copy of adhar card Ex.C4, report Assistant Statistical Officer office of DDA Sirsa Ex.C5, copy of notification of Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department dated 30.3.2018 Ex.C6, copy of Annexure A regarding sum insured, premium and subsidy Ex.C7, copy of Annexure C regarding list of rain gauge stations Ex.C8. 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 and copy of details of three farmers showing insurance company and UTR numbers.
8. It is proved fact on record that complainant is having his agriculture land in village Gigorani, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta District Sirsa and is holding KCC account with op no.2. It is further proved on record that op no.2 had deducted a sum of Rs.4219.20 on account of premium on 14.8.2018 from KCC account of complainant for insuring the cotton crop of kharif, 2018 season of the complainant in his agricultural land. From copy of statement of account Ex.C1, it is evident that complainant is having joint KCC account with his father Om Parkash.
9. The grievance of the complainant is that his cotton crop for the kharif, 2018 season was damaged and other farmers of village Gigorani having land in the revenue estate of village Gigorani, District Sirsa have received insurance claim against the cotton crop damage for kharif, 2018 season at the rate of Rs.17,350/- 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.C5 according to which threshold yield of Block Nathusari Chopta for kharif, 2018 is 561.06 Kg. Lint. per Hectare and average yield of village Gigorani for Kharif, 2018 is 229.43 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 Gigorani (Block Nathusari Chopta) for kharif, 2018 is 229.43 Kg. Lint per hectare and threshold yield of Block Nathusari Chopta for kharif, 2018 is 561.06 Kg. Lint per hectare, so according to above said criteria given in clause 15(b) of the notification, there was damage to the cotton crop of village Gigorani for kharif, 2018. Therefore, it is proved on record that there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant also.
10. It is the case of the op no.2 bank that op no.1 insurance company has accepted the premium for insuring the cotton crop of the complainant of the kharif, 2018. Whereas according to op no.1, as the premium was deducted from the KCC account of the complainant much later than cut off date, his crop was not insured and his account particulars for the purpose of insurance were not uploaded on the Portal of PMFBY by the Nodal Bank. It is further plea of op no.1 that op no.1 had never received the premium for the insurance of the crop in the land of complainant situated in village Gigorani and the same was not insured with it. The eligible farmers of village Gigorani, whose crops were damaged have been paid for the loss of the crops. From the copy of statement of account Ex.C1, it is proved on record that on 14.8.2018 an amount of Rs.4219.20 was deducted by op no.2 from the joint KCC account of complainant for insuring the cotton crop of kharif, 2018. The op no.2 bank in order to prove that premium was credited in the account of opposite party no.1 Oriental Insurance Company has also placed on record copy of payment details of premium of three farmers which includes complainant Bhupender and payment of premium to op no.1 has been done by op no.2 through UTR No.N226180610002618. The opposite party no.1 has not placed on record any document/ proof to show that op no.1 has not received any premium amount from the KCC account of the complainant. The oral plea of the op no.1 in this regard is not supported by any documentary evidence. So it is proved on record that op no.1 has received premium of Rs.4219.20 from KCC account of complainant through op no.2 on 14.8.2018 and has retained the said premium amount for a long time and has not refunded the same. If the premium amount was credited by op no.2 to op no.1 after cut off date for insurance of crop, then op no.1 should not have retained the premium and should have refunded the same to the account of the complainant but op no.1 has failed to do so meaning thereby that op no.1 accepted the premium without any objection and now when the damage to the crop of complainant has been caused, then op no.1 is arbitrarily and illegally denying to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. So, the opposite party no.1 is deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practice. The opposite party no.1 is only found liable to pay claim amount for the damage to the cotton crop of complainant for the Kharif, 2018 season and op no.2 is not found responsible in this regard. The op no.1 will settle and pay the claim amount to the complainant for the damage of his above said crop considering agriculture land and premium amount as amount of premium was credited from the joint KCC account of complainant.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 and direct opposite party no.1 to settle and pay the claim amount for the damage to the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2018 season at par with other farmers of village Gigorani/ Block who have already received compensation for damage to their crop of kharif, 2018. We also direct op no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The op no.1 is directed to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which op no.1 shall be liable to pay interest @7% per annum on the payable claim amount from the date of order till actual realization. However, complaint qua op no.2 stands dismissed. 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.
