BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 311 of 2019 Date of Institution : 11.06.2019.
Date of Decision : 18.02.2020.
Madan Lal aged about 50 years son of Shri Brij Lal, resident of Ward No.5, village Ban Sudhar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. ABW Towers, Unit No. 511-512, 5th Floor, M.G. Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurugram- 122001 through authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. P.S. Chauhan, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, 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 is an agriculturist by profession and he is recorded owner of agriculture land measuring 15 kanal comprised in Khewat No. 14 Khatuni No.19 situated in village Ban Sudhar, Tehsil and District Sirsa. That Government of India has launched crop insurance scheme i.e. Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for the farmers and under this scheme, the crops of those farmers were to be insured who have their KCC accounts in the bank and op no.2 was to insure the crops of such farmers. As per the scheme, the amount of premium was to be deducted by the bank itself directly from the KCC account of farmers and further necessary documents were also to be supplied by the bank to the insurance company after obtaining the same from the farmers. It is further averred that complainant is also having his KCC account with op no.1 bank bearing account No. 1947008800018778 and this account was also being maintained by him even at the time of pronouncement of the scheme. That during the season of Kharif, 2017, the complainant sown the cotton and paddy crop in his agriculture land and as per scheme of the Government, on 31.7.2017, an amount of Rs.4087.01 as premium was deducted by op no.1 from the bank account of complainant and thus the aforesaid cotton and paddy crop of complainant has been insured under the said scheme. That crops of number of farmers of village Ban Sudhar have been damaged on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and similarly, the cotton and paddy crops of complainant have also been damaged on account of said natural calamities and therefore complainant is entitled to compensation amount. That complainant came to know that most of the farmers have already received the amount of compensation from Government/ Insurance companies but surprisingly complainant did not receive any amount qua the compensation from the ops. It is further averred that complainant contacted the ops and requested them to pay the amount of compensation but firstly the ops kept on avoiding the requests of complainant on one false pretext or the other and ultimately in the month of January, 2019 the ops declined to compensate him without disclosing any reasonable cause. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per the terms of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) scheme, which was launched by Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on 13.2.2016, the farmers who have sought crop loan through any Fiancial Institutions, it was mandatory for the Banks to insure all the borrowers under the scheme. The premium of the insurance was to be deducted from the account and was to be paid to op no.2 insurance company by the Bank. In the present case, at the time of advancement of loan to the complainant by answering op, the complainant had produced the revenue record and had also declared the pattern of crop for his land i.e. paddy-wheat. The complainant had never informed the bank regarding change of the pattern of the crop. The Bank has debited the amount of premium from the account of complainant and has credited the same to the account of op no.2 on 11.8.2017 as premium of the insurance. All the information required by op no.2 was sent to the insurance company as per rules. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Bansudhar, 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 are 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 gone through the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of adhar card Ex.C1, copy of statement of account Ex.C2, copies of jamabandi Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, copies of khasra girdawari Ex.C5/A, Ex.C6, copy of certificate of Assistant Statistical Officer Ex.C7. On the other hand, op no.1 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Data Ram, Branch Manager as Ex.R1, copy of assessment form Ex.R2 and copy of document regarding crop Ex.R3, copy of khasrai girdawari Ex.R4. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence.
7. It is proved on record that complainant is owner of land measuring 15 Kanal as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint. As per allegations of complainant, he had sown crop of cotton in kharif, 2017 which was damaged due to natural calamities. Said crop was got insured by op no.1 through op no.2 after deducting premium of Rs.4087.01 on 31.7.2017. The complainant has claimed compensation qua the damage of cotton crop of kharif, 2017. He has tendered his affidavit and relied upon copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7. But perusal of evidence of op bank reveals that at the time of raising loan, complainant had made a declaration by way of filling proposal form, the copy of which is Ex.R2 and in which he had mentioned the proposed crops as paddy, sugar cane, wheat, sunflower etc. and same bears signatures of Madan Lal complainant. The op no.1 has also relied upon affidavit of Sh. Data Ram Branch Manager in which he has deposed that complainant had produced the revenue record and had also declared the pattern of crop for his land as paddy and wheat and complainant had never informed the Bank regarding change of the pattern of the crop.
8. Though, complainant has placed on record copy of khasra girdawari which reflects sowing of cotton crop of complainant, but however, complainant has not placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that complainant had ever informed the ops regarding sowing of cotton crop in his field before deduction of the premium by op bank and crediting the same in the account of insurance company which is lapse on the part of complainant himself and he himself is supposed to suffer for this lapse.
9. Since, complainant did not get his cotton crop insured from opposite party no.2 through op no.1, as such complainant does not appear to be entitled for claim of damage of cotton crop. On the basis of declaration, op no.1 had deducted the amount of premium and get paddy crop of complainant insured from insurance company which has not been damaged by natural calamities.
10. In view of above discussion, complainant has failed to prove his allegations against the ops by leading cogent and convincing evidence. As such complaint of complainant is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 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. Member President,
Dated:18.02.2020. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
