BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 275 of 2017
Date of Institution : 25.10.2017
Date of Decision : 17.1.2019.
Bhadur @ Bahadur Ram son of Sh. Bhura @ Bhura Ram, aged about 62 years, resident of House no.23, Near Krishan Temple, village Ghoranwali, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa (Haryana).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Rania, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa through Branch Head/ Branch Manager.
2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Head/ Branch Manager, SCO- 146-147, Sector-9 C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
3. Reliance General Insurance, H- Block, Ist Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai- 400710.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist having agricultural land in village Gindran, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. The complainant obtained the loan under KCC scheme vide loan account no.4562008800011399 from opposite party no.1/ Bank. The op no.1 insured the cotton crop for the year 2016 under the Kharif season with ops no.2 and 3 and deducted the total insurance premium of Rs.8256/- out of above said KCC account on 25.7.2016. The complainant was sanctioned loan under KCC scheme by op no.1/ bank and many other farmers had taken the crop loan and paid the total insurance amount. It is further averred that many other farmers of Gindran village were sanctioned insurance claim for the year 2016 under the kharif season for the loss of cotton crop but the complainant was not sanctioned the insurance claim for the year 2016 under the kharif season for the loss of cotton crop. The complainant approached the op no.1 several times and requested for sanction of insurance claim. He also approached to ops no.2 and 3 in this regard but there was no response. The op no.1/ bank admitted that while submitting crop loan statement for the kharif year 2016, they have mentioned the village name as ‘Ghoranwali’ instead of ‘Gindran’ village and therefore a mistake occurred while feeding the data in the computer. It is further averred that op no.1/ bank sought one month time to get clearance from the higher officials to correct this mistake but thereafter did not receive any response in settlement of the claim. The ops no.2 and 3 being insurer are bound to make payment as claimed by complainant due to deficiency on the part of ops. It is further averred that op no.1/ bank collected the premiums from all eligible farmers to whom crop loans were arranged during the kharif season of 2016 and sent the same in turn to its Regional office in a consolidated format containing the particulars of crop loan borrowers and the loan amounts that were sanctioned alongwith particulars of nature of land for onward transmission to the ops no.2 and 3. It is further averred that ops no.2 and 3 did not release the insurance amount to the complainant. As per revenue record, the village name is Gindran whereas the complainant used to live in village Ghoranwali, therefore, while entering the data into the computer, the village name was entered as Ghoranwali. It is further averred that loan disbursing bank branches while disbursing the crop loans used to debit the insurance premiums from the farmers account and submit the details crop wise, month wise and notified area wise to the insurance companies. The op no.1/ bank has admitted the mistake of feeding a wrong village name Ghoranwali instead of Gindran. It was further submitted that during kharif 2016 for cotton crop for Gindran notified village, as per claims settlement process, the claims were settled at the rate of Rs.7000/- per acre. The complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- for his land measuring 136 Kanal 6 Marla (6.880 Hectare) comprised in Khewat No.245, Khatuni No.301 as per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 situated in village Gindran alongwith interest @18% per annum at half yearly rests alongwith Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation and further entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- from the ops for mental and physical harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op has deposited the premium paid by complainant in the favour of op no.2 who is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. It is further submitted that the officials of the answering op has deposited the premium of Rs.8256/- to the op no.2 for insurance of crops of complainant. It was the duty of the ops no.2 and 3 to visit the complainant and after verification of crops to insure the crops of complainant. If ops no.2 and 3 have not seen any crops of complainant then it was their duty to refund the premium paid by complainant at that time. The officials of ops no.2 and 3 have not refunded the premium paid by complainant, hence it is presumed that they have accepted the premium and insured the crops of complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. Opposite parties no.2 and 3 filed separate written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage for alleged village. It is submitted that as per complainant himself, loss of crop has been effected at village Gindran which has not been insured by insurance company. As per declaration form submitted by Bank, village Ghoranwali was insured with insurance company whereas complainant is claiming for coverage of village Gindran which is not covered under policy scheme and thus, complaint is liable to be dismissed on both the ground for non coverage of village and non coverage of cotton crop as well. The copy of declaration form submitted by Bank is enclosed. That insurance company cannot be questioned for proposal related disputes. It is submitted that 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, name of insured village is Ghoranwali but complainant is claiming for village Gindran which has never been insured with insurance company. 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 and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. The clause of operational guidelines is being reproduced as under for kind perusal:-
XVII. Important Conditions/ Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks
Insurance Companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intermediary or directly. Any loss in transit due to negligence by these agencies or non remittance of premium by these agencies, the concerned bank/ intermediaries shall be liable for payment of claims.
In case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/ branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting.
Mere sanctioning/ disbursement of crop loans and submission of proposals/ declarations and remittance of premium by farmer/ bank, without explicit intent to raise the crop, does not constitute acceptance of risk by insurance company.
Further while explaining about the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna in detail, it is 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 present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum because complainant has approached this Forum with bad intention even without approaching to grievance cell of government agencies as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme. 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/ Banks 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. 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 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. It is further submitted that apart from non intimation of claim, complainant has also not supplied any proof for loss or weather index report of Metrological Department of India in support of claim which establishes that alleged loss of crop had never occurred in the area. Further, in absence of credible proof for loss of crop such as news cutting, government recommendation and weather report of metrological department of India, it cannot be believed that loss had actually happened in the village of complainant. It is further submitted that as evident from scheme of insurance that only localized claims were to be decided by insurance company and other risks of coverage were to be handled by government agencies by finalizing yield of crop. The present case of complainant is not clear about nature of loss. It is further submitted that yield basis claims are settled by insurance company only upon receiving of yield from government agencies and completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme. That quantification of loss cannot be determined in absence of necessary survey of loss which ought to be conducted immediately after occurrence of loss and thus, illegal and high demand of complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that onus to prove about loss of crop at the end of complainant himself which cannot be believed unless cogent evidences are submitted to insurance company in accordance with terms of scheme. It is further submitted that present complaint is not maintainable on the ground of privity of contract as insurance scheme has been provided to bank and consideration has also been received from bank only. In absence of any consideration from complainant or want of any written contract of insurance, present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as complainant is unable to establish any direct relation with insurance company and thus, complainant cannot be treated as consumer. It is further submitted that complainant has not made all the government agencies as necessary parties in the complaint and thus, adjudication of cases cannot be initiated without impleading necessary ops in the case. On merits, it is submitted that it is a great mistake on the part of the concerned bank and concerned bank is liable to pay the present claim. It is relevant to mention here that the answering op never received any intimation regarding the correction in the name of village before cutoff date. It is also 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 Beema Yojna and it is also the duty of field officer of concerned bank to inspect the crop of complainant time to time because bank charged the inspection fee from KCC holder. It is further submitted that the village Gindran is not qualified as per the terms and condition of the insurance policy, so no claim can be put forwarded on the shoulder of answering ops. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
4. The complainant and op no.1 then led their respective evidence by way of affidavit and documents. The ops no.2 and 3 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities including last opportunities and therefore, the evidence of ops no.2 and 3 was closed by order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of certificate of bank Ex.C1, copy of jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 Ex.C2, copy of pass book Ex.C3 and copy of his adhar card Ex.C4. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Jitender Gupta, Branch Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of application form for agricultural credit Ex.R1 and copy of declaration form Ex.R2.
7. It is proved case of complainant that complainant is resident of village Ghoranwali having his agricultural land at village Gindran and is holding KCC account with opposite party no.1 and also availed crop loan from the said bank. It is also proved on record that complainant got his cotton crop insured for the kharif 2016 from opposite parties no.2 and 3 after paying the premium which was got deducted by op no.1 from the KCC account of complainant. It is also proved on record that said premium was transferred by op o.1 to ops no.2 and 3 and declaration of the loanee farmers was also filed by op no.1 to ops no.2 and 3.
8. The bone of contention between parties is qua the insurance of crop of complainant. As per the contention of complainant, he is resident of village Ghoranwali and his land is situated in village Gindran and his crop was insured at Gindran which was damaged due to natural calamity and adverse environment and compensation was given to other farmers who are having their lands at village Gindran but inadvertently the op no.1 did not get his crop insured with ops no.2 and 3 at village Gindran as while furnishing declaration name of village was mentioned as Ghoranwali whereas there was no crop of complainant at village Ghoranwali. His version has also been corroborated by ops no.2 and 3. There is specific plea of ops no.2 and 3 that premium was paid by op no.1 against the land of complainant at village Ghoranwali which was insured with ops no.2 and 3 and no crop of complainant at village Gindran was got insured by op no.1, so there was no question of any payment by insurance company.
9. The perusal of written statement of op no.1 reveals that though they have taken this plea that answering op has deposited the premium paid by complainant in favour of op no.2 who is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The officials of the answering op deposited the premium of Rs.8256/- to the op no.2 for insurance of crops of complainant. It was the duty of the ops no.2 and 3 to visit the complainant and after verification of crops to insure the crops of complainant. If ops no.2 and 3 have not seen any crops of complainant then it was their duty to refund the premium paid by complainant at that time. The officials of ops no.2 and 3 have not refunded the premium paid by complainant, hence it is presumed that they have accepted the premium and insured the crops of complainant. The perusal of copy of certificate issued by bank Ex.C1 which has been relied by complainant reveals that it is mentioned in the certificate that “this is to certify that PMFBY for Kharif 2016, Insurance company Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. was done for cotton crop of Sh. Bhadur S/o Sh. Bhura Ram, vill- Ghoranwali, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa’ whereas as per copy of jamabandi Ex.C2, land of complainant is situated in village Gindran and not at village Ghoranwali. So it appears that there is mistake on the part of officials of the bank op no.1 and bank is supposed to suffer for the losses suffered by the complainant. There was insurance coverage of village Ghoranwali on the basis of declaration of the complainant and not of village Gindran. So, if there is any liability to pay compensation that shifts on the shoulder of op no.1 as per clause 17 of the guidelines. The perusal of the declaration form Ex.R2 reveals that it finds mention the name of village as Ghoranwali. Further more from copy of application form for agricultural credit Ex.R1 which has been relied by op no.1 itself, it is revealed that complainant is holding his land in village Gindran though he is resident of village Ghoranwali. So, it appears that the bank was having all relevant record regarding proof qua the residence of complainant in village Ghoranwali as well as land of complainant at village Gindran, but however, the bank took it in a very casual and ordinary manner while making declaration of the farmers including present complainant showing agricultural land of complainant at village Ghoranwali. So, it appears from the record that there is a blunder mistake on the part of officials of the bank and same cannot be overlooked while putting the fate of claim of complainant in air. The complainant has also alleged that many other farmers of village Gindran were sanctioned insurance claim for the year 2016 for the loss of cotton crop. There is specific plea of the insurance company that there is no insurance contract between insurance company and complainant and contract is between bank and insurance company as there was crop insurance for which bank had received the premium from the farmers and had deposited the same with insurance company after charging their service charges, so the contract is interse between op no.1 and ops no.2 and 3 qua terms and conditions of crop insurance. From the evidence of complainant, it is proved that complainant is holding land at village Gindran but due to wrong declaration made by op no.1 to ops no.2 and 3 qua name of village shown as Ghoranwali, the complainant has not been paid any compensation by insurance company due to mistake on the part of bank, as such in view of clause XVII of the operational guidelines, the bank is liable to pay compensation and it also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of bank. We also find force from the judgment of the National Commission in case titled as Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & Anr. Vs. Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & Anr. 2015 (4) CLT 545 in which it was observed that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1) (d) Crop insurance scheme- Insurance premium debited in loan account of agriculturists by the bank by receiving service charges on premium collected from agriculturists- Damage of groundnut crops- Repudiation of claim- Deficiency in service- Complaint allowed against bank in appeal- Legality of- There was relationship of consumer and service provider between agriculturists and bank- As per clause 19 of guidelines to Financial Institutions, Financial Institutions were to be only responsible for all omissions and commissions committed by them- Prima facie, error has been committed by bank in remitting amount of premium recovered from agriculturists while sending it to insurance company in wrong name of village of complainants- Bank rightly held liable to reimburse all the losses.
10. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint qua op no.1 and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay compensation to the complainant on the basis of report submitted by agriculture department at par with the other farmers of village Gindran to whom compensation has already been paid by insurance company and same has been credited in their accounts. The bank is further directed to pay interest @7% per annum on the payable amount from the date of payment made to other farmers till its realization and further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. The complaint qua ops no.2 and 3 stands dismissed. However, the op no.1 is at liberty to recover amount which will be paid to the complainant if same is payable to the bank by ops no.2 and 3 under the terms and conditions of insurance contract arrived at between op no.1 and ops no.2 and 3 or under any other law. The op no.1 is liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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:17.1.2019. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
