BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.: 293 of 2017
Date of Institution: 30.10.2017
Date of order: 30.11.2018.
Kailash aged about 35 years son of Sh. Harbans Singh, resident of Village Jogiwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
….. Complainant.
Versus
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered office 19 Reliance Centre, Walachand, Hira Chand Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai.
- HDFC Bank Ltd. Old Building, “C” Wing 3rd floor Business Banking OPS Chandiwali Andheri (E) Mumbai through its General Manager.
- HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch Office, Fatehabad through its Branch Manager, opposite Delhi Nursing Home G.T. Road, Fatehabad.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.
Present: Sh.Surender Sihag, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. U.K. Gera, counsel for the OP No.1.
Sh.Amit Wadhera, counsel for the OP No.2 & 3.
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that he is an agriculturist by profession having agricultural land in village Jogiwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa comprised in Khewat No. 253, Khatuni No. 428. It is further submitted that the complainant being an agriculturist had obtained the KCC facilities from the OPs no. 2 & 3. It is further submitted that the Government of India has launched crop insurance scheme for the farmers under PMFBY. As per this scheme the crop of those farmers have been insured who have obtained KCC facility from the bank and installment of the insured compulsorily who have obtained KCC facility from the bank and installment of the insured amount has been debited from the KCC account of the farmers by the bank. It is further submitted that as per scheme the OP no. 1 had insured the crop of the complainant and premium of the insurance of Rs. 3119/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant bearing no. 50200010745042. It is further submitted that four crops including Narma and Gawar were covered under the insurance policy and the complainant had sown the Narma crop in his agricultural land and as per the said scheme the Narma crop was covered under the insurance policy. It is further submitted that the crop of the Narma of the complainant was damaged to the extent of 100% due to unnatural Aapdayen and on the general instructions of the State Government for spot inspection of the agricultural land the officials of agriculture department visited the land of the complainant as well as other agriculturists and found that the Narma crop of the complainant has been damaged and report regarding damages has been submitted to the Agriculture Department and Agriculture Department submitted that report to the OP no. 2 & 3. It is further submitted that the insurance claim on account of damages caused to the crop of the complainant under the aforesaid policy was to be paid by OP no. 1 on the basis of recommendation of the OPs no. 2 & 3. It is further submitted that OPs no. 2 & 3 had to submit the report regarding the damages caused to the crop of the farmers including the complainant and accordingly the report regarding the damage to the crop of the complainant was submitted to the OP no. 1 by the OP no. 2 & 3 mentioning therein the crop of the complainant was Paddy instead of Narma whereas under the insurance policy the crop of paddy was not covered and in view of the report submitted by the OPs no. 2 & 3, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP no. 1 on the pretext that the crop of paddy is not covered under the policy under the scheme of the Government. It is further submitted that the act and conduct of the OPs no. 2 & 3 amounts to deficiency in service, gross negligence and unfair trade practice.
2. It is further submitted that after the repudiation of his claim, the complainant approached the OPs and requested them to indemnify his claim under the said policy stating that the damages were caused to his Narma crop on account of unnatural Aapdayen and not to the paddy crop as alleged in the report submitted by the officials of the OP no. 3 to OP no. 1. It is further submitted that the complainant approached to the OPs many a times and requested them to do the needful & complainant had submitted the requisite documents in this regard but the OPs prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other.
3. The complainant has prayed that the OPs may be directed to indemnify the loss of the complainant under the policy amounting to Rs. 3 lakh. The complainant has further prayed that the OPs may be directed to make a payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant along-with Rs. 20,000/- as penalty and Rs.22,000/- as lawyer fee. Hence, the present complaint.
4. Upon notice, the OP no. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, territorial jurisdiction, non-submission of proof of loss or weather report, limited coverage as per scheme, yield based claims are decided by Government, no survey and no quantification of loss, privity of contract, impleading of necessary parties etc. have been raised. In the preliminary objections the OP no. 1 has also reproduced the objectives of the scheme, coverage of farmers, crops and coverage of risks and exclusions.
5. In reply on merits, it is submitted that no intimation regarding damage was given to the answering OP. It is further submitted that as per guidelines of scheme intimation is to be given within 48 hours but complainant 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 the complainant has not produced any proof or evidence in support of his contention that damage has been caused to the crop. It is further submitted that as per complaint the loss to the cotton crop has been affected in village Jogiwala, but cotton crop in village Jogiwala has not been insured by the OP No.1. As per declaration form admitted by the Bank village Jogiwala District Sirsa was insured for paddy crop whereas complainant is seeking claim for cotton crop which is not covered under the policy. If any mistake has been done by the bank the Op No.1 is not liable for the same. Therefore the present complaint is without any merits against OP No.1 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. After receiving notice OPs no. 2 & 3 also appeared through their counsel and submitted a joint written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction, barred by limitation and concealment of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.
7. In reply on merits, it is submitted that answering respondent have no personal knowledge of damage of Narma Crop on the spot due to natural disaster. After getting insured the crops of the complainant, dispute remains pending between him and insurance company, who has charged the premium from the complainant. The contract is between the complainant and OP no. 1 and not between complainant and answering OPs. It is also submitted that answering OPs have no personal knowledge about the visit of agriculture department at the spot. If any damage has taken place then it is the sole liability of the OP no. 1 to pay the compensation. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the complainant to provide proper information to the answering OPs about the crop, if any wrong information has been provided by the complainant then he himself is responsible for any loss of crop. It is further submitted that the answering OPs have no personal knowledge of sowing of the narma crop by the complainant in his field but as per the record available with the answering OPs and information provided by the complainant at the time of advancing the loan from the answering respondent, he has stated and provided information that he used to sow the paddy in the kharif season. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondents.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit CW1/A wherein the averments made by the complainant in his complaint have been affirmed. The learned counsel for the complainant also tendered in evidence the documents Exhibit C-1 to Exhibit C-4 and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP no. 1 tendered in evidence documents Annexure 1 to Annexure 5 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the OP no. 2 & 3 tendered in evidence document Annexure R-1.
9. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. It is the case of the complainant that he is an agriculturist by profession and has obtained KCC facilities from OP no. 2 & 3. It is further the case of the complainant that Government of India launched a crop insurance scheme for the farmers under PMFBY and under the abovesaid scheme all farmers availing seasonal agricultural operations (SAO) loans from financial institutions for the notified crops would be covered compulsorily. As per the abovesaid scheme OP no. 1 insured his crop and a premium of Rs. 3119/- was withdrawn from his bank account bearing no. 50200010745042 on 17.8.2016. The complainant had sown Narma (cotton) crop in his agriculture land and the said crop was covered under the insurance policy.
10. It is further the case of the complainant that the crop of Narma was damaged to the extent of 100% due to unnatural Aapdayen. Therefore, the damaged crop was inspected by the Agriculture Department, Haryana and it was observed by the inspecting team that the cotton crop has been damaged and report regarding the same was furnished to OP no. 2 & 3. The said inspection report was produced by OP no. 2 & 3 before OP no. 1 mentioning therein the crop of the complainant as paddy insead of Narma whereas the paddy crop was not covered in the insurance policy. It is further submitted that the insurance claim of the complainant was repudiated by OP no. 1 on the ground that the crop of paddy is not covered under the policy. In fact the loss to the complainant was caused on account of damage in cotton and the same was duly covered under the policy. However, the loss was not indemnified by OP no. 1 only on account of the reason that OP no. 2 & 3 sent a faulty report to OP no. 1. Therefore, the abovesaid act on the part of OP no. 2 & 3 amounts to deficiency in service, gross negligence and unfair trade practice. As per the revenue record i.e. girdawari of the relevant period the cotton crop was cultivated by the complainant in his fields.
11. The present complaint has been contested by OP no. 1 mainly on the ground that as per the complaint loss of cotton crop has been affected in village Jogiwala, District Sirsa but the cotton crop has not been insured by the OP no. 1. As per declaration form submitted by OP no. 2 the village Jogiwala, District Sirsa was insured for paddy crop only whereas the complainant is claiming insurance claim for loss of cotton crop which is not covered by the insurance policy issued by OP no. 1 to the complainant. The role of the insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with the insurance policy and the insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant or bank of the complainant. In the present case, the complainant is claiming insurance claim for damage in the cotton crop but the same was never insured by the OP no. 1. It is also the case of the OP no. 1 that no intimation was ever given by the complainant to OP no. 1 regarding the loss in the crop and no evidence has been produced by the complainant regarding loss in his cotton crop. The complainant has not produced any survey or inspection report in support of his claim.
12. It is the case of the OP no. 2 & 3 that they are bankers and have just followed and complied with the mandatory direction and instructions of the Government and RBI to debit the premium from the account of all the farmers who have availed the KCC loan from the bank and in the present case the OP no. 2 & 2 have just debited the premium from the account of the complainant for the crop which he stated in the documents while taking the loan from the OPs bank and it is the complainant who himself has declared that he used to cultivate the paddy crop in kharif season and on the same basis premium of the paddy crop has been debited from the account of the complainant and it is not the duty of the bank to verify the same at the spot that which crop has been sown by him at the spot. Rather, it is the duty of OP no. 1 to check and verify the crop for which the insurance company have got premium. It is further the case of the OP no. 2 & 3 that the complainant is also at fault as he did not inform the answering OPs about the change of sowing of different crop from the documents provided at the time of taking the loan. At the time of taking the loan the complainant had stated that he used to sow the paddy crop in the kharif season and accordingly the answering OPs debited the premium for the paddy crop and credited in the account of OP no. 1. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OP no. 2 & 3 in rendering service to the complainant.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following 2 issues are involved in the present case for disposal by this Forum:
1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of OP no. 2 and 3 in crediting the insurance premium of the complainant in the account of OP no. 1 for the paddy crop instead of cotton crop?
2. Whether the complainant has suffered any loss in the cotton crop sown in Kharif 2016 and as to whether that loss is covered under the insurance policy in question?
14. To decide issue no. 1:- Application For Retail Agriculture Loan (Annexure R-1), is a relevant document. The abovesaid application has been filed by the complainant before OP no. 3 for obtaining agriculture loan. In the column titled “Assessment of Cash Credit Limit Form Expenses Details” of Annexure R-1 the crop paddy for the kharif season has been mentioned. Similarly, in the column titled as Form Income Details of Annexure R-1 of paddy crop in the season Kharif has been mentioned. The abovesaid application form Annexure R-1, has been signed by the complainant Shri Mange Ram and he has also declared that all the information provided above are true to his knowledge and belief. In view of the above, it is well established that the complainant had taken agriculture loan for the paddy crop. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency or irregularity on the part of OP no. 2 & 3 for crediting the premium to the insurance company in the kharif 2016 for paddy crop as the complainant in his application form has mentioned that he is sowing paddy in kharif season. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the Haryana Government Agriculture Department notification dated 17.6.2016 (Annexure-2) in the sub-para (e) of Para 11 i.e. collection of proposals and premium from farmers, it is clearly mentioned that for any reason if a farmer changes the crop, he should intimate the change to the insurance company at least 30 days before the cut of date for buying the insurance, through the bank/insurance company/insurance intermediary. In topic role of responsibilities of various agencies at serial no. XXIV of operational guidelines of PMFBY, it is stipulated that any change in crop plan should be brought to the notice of the bank by the loanee farmer within one week of sowing. In view of the abovesaid provision of the notification dated 17.6.2016 and in view of the operational guidelines of PMFBY, it is the responsibility of the farmer to intimate regarding change of crop to the insurance company. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of OP no. 2 & 3 in sending the information to the insurance company that loan has been taken by the complainant for paddy crop.
15. Issue no. 2:- The complainant in the present complaint has alleged that the cotton crop was damaged to the extent of 100% due to unnatural Aapdayen. Therefore, onus was upon the complainant to prove that the cotton crop was damaged and the said damage was covered under the insurance policy in question. However, the complainant has not produced any evidence or document to prove that damage was caused in the cotton crop sown by him is Kharif 2016. There is no inspection report or survey report or any loss assessment report of the Agriculture Department to prove that the cotton crop in question was damaged. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant has submitted that the damage has been caused on account of unnatural Aapdayen. The abovesaid term is vague and without any meaning. Under the PMFBY insurance is provided to cover yield losses due to non-preventable risks i.e. drought, dry spell, flood, inundation, pests and diseases, landslides, nature fire and lightening, storm, hailstorm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tampest, Hurricane and Tornado. However, the complainant in its complaint has not mentioned any reason on account of which the damage to the cotton crop has been caused. Therefore, it cannot be ascertained whether the reason of loss caused to the cotton crop is covered under the abovesaid policy or not.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to him. The present complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum:
Dt.30.11.2018.
.
(Rajni Goyat) (Jasvinder Singh) (Raghbir Singh)
Member Member President,
DCDRF, Fatehabad
