BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 166 of 2018
Date of Institution : 23.05.2018.
Date of Decision : 14.11.2019.
Smt. Neelam aged about 53 years wife of Shri Sanjay Kumar son of Shri Madan Gopal, resident of 81, C-Block, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Reliance General Insurance Company Private Limited, 2nd Floor, SCO No.145-146-147-148, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh- 160009.
- Reliance General Insurance Company Private Limited, Branch Office situated at Near BDO Office, Bal Bhawan Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
- Union Bank of India, Govt. National College, Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
- State of Haryana through Collector, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Manav Goyal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Opposite party no.4 exparte.
ORDER
The case of complainant in brief is that complainant is having small agricultural land measuring 23 kanals being part of the land comprised in Rect. No.60 Killa No.15, 16, 17, 24, 25 Rect. No.65 Killa No.4, 5 Rect. No.83 Killa No.6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24/1 situated in village Jhiri, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The complainant is having bank account number 535205030040342 in Union Bank of India branch Govt. National College, Sirsa. It is further averred that a sum of Rs.847.08 was deducted from the bank account of complainant on 9.8.2016 on account of premium of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna in favour of Reliance Insurance Company for the purpose of insurance of crop. In the year 2016, the crop sown by complainant in the above said land was badly damaged and other villagers have also suffered losses of their crops and the fact of damage of crop was told by complainant to the Revenue Officers but all in vain and all the villagers have been given their due compensation on account of damages of their crop to the tune of Rs.8,000/- per acre but complainant has not been given any amount of compensation. It is further averred that complainant approached and requested the ops to pay compensation but the ops postponed the matter with one pretext or the other and ultimately legal notice dated 10.11.2017 was served upon the ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 to 3 appeared. Ops no.1 and 2 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted 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. For localized claims, there was a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss and after intimation of claim, necessary survey of affected area had to be conducted by surveyor for decision of claim of farmers, but the complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss of crop which is violation of terms and conditions of scheme. 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. The complainant has also not supplied any proof for loss or weather index report of Metrological Department of India of India in support of claim which establishes that alleged loss of crop had never occurred in the area. It is further submitted that 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. The 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. The present case of complainant is not clear about nature of loss. Moreover, yield claim for alleged village does not make insurance company liable for claim amount because actual yield (4001.02) is already greater than threshold yield (3001.5). It is further submitted that there is no privity of contract as insurance scheme has been provided to bank and consideration has also been received from bank only and as such present complaint is not maintainable. It is also submitted that complainant has not made all the government agencies as necessary party and that it is not an individual policy like other insurance policies rather it is a group insurance scheme in accordance with agreed terms and conditions of scheme “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” which are binding on all of concerned related to the scheme and all the necessary information and required documents may be collected by any govt. agency/ Bank/ Insurance Portal etc. and supplied to the concerned insurance company. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
3. Op no.3 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has purchased a policy from ops no.1 and 2 and accordingly, the answering op has debited a sum of Rs.847.08 from the account of complainant on 9.8.2016 and transferred the same to ops no.1 and 2 on the very same day. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation from answering op. If the complainant is found entitled to any compensation on account of any loss or damage of her crops, then it is the ops no.1 and 2 who are liable to indemnify the claim. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
4. Opposite party no.4 failed to appear despite due service and was proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant and opposite parties no.1 to 3 then led their evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainant in her to prove her complaint has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which she has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. She has also furnished copy of jamabandi Ex.C1, copy of statement of account Ex.C2, copy of jamabandi Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4 and copies of postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C8. On the other hand, op no.3 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Sunil Sihag, Manager as Ex.R1. Ops no.1 and 2 have furnished affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, Authorized signatory as Ex.R2.
8. As per allegations of complainant, she is owner of land measuring 23 kanals and was holding account number 535205030040342 with op no.3. A sum of Rs.847.08 was deducted by op no.3 on 9.8.2016 in order to get her crop insured with ops no.1 and 2. It is also averred in the complaint that in the year 2016, the crop sown by complainant was badly damaged, but however, she has not been paid any compensation on account of loss of crop. The perusal of evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has placed on record only copy of jamabandi which reveals that land stands in the name of Neelam Rani daughter of Ramditta whereas present complaint has been filed by Smt. Neelam wfe of Sanjay Kumar son of Shri Madan Gopal. The complainant has not placed on record any copy of khasra girdawari for kharif 2016 in order to prove the fact that which crop had been sown by the complainant in her field during kharif, 2016.
9. The complainant has alleged loss of crop in her field, but complainant has not placed on record any report of Agriculture Department which inspected and verified the loss of crop in the field of complainant or in other fields of village Jhiri, Tehsil and District Sirsa. As per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, loss is to be assessed by the agricultural department on the basis of crop cutting experiments. However, complainant has not placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that average yield of village level is less than threshold yield as assessed by agricultural department since, it is a group insurance scheme and not an individual insurance policy.
10. So, it appears from the evidence of complainant that complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence in order to prove her claim for loss of crop. Rather the perusal of complaint reveals that complainant has not mentioned even the name of crop which she had sown in her field. In these circumstances, 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 free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:14.11.2019. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
