BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 268 of 2017                                                                         

                                                       Date of Institution         :    18.10.2017

                                                          Date of Decision   :    29.11.2018.

Dhanwant Singh aged about 48 years son of Shri Jangir Singh son of Shri Sahab Singh, resident of village Sukhchain, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa. 

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered office 19 Reliance Centre, Walchand, Hira Chand Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai- 400001.

2. State Bank of India, Branch Office, Kalanwali through its Branch Manager.                                                    

...…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. Vijay Bhalla,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                   Sh. Ravinder Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and is the owner in possession of agriculture land comprised in Khewat No.184 Khatuni No.340 situated at village Sukhchain, Tehsil and District Sirsa. That the complainant obtained the KCC facilities from op no.2. That the Government of India has announced regarding crop insurance of the farmers under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna who have availed credit card facility from the bank. As per the scheme, the op no.1 had insured the crops of the complainant and premium of the insurance of Rs.2776.80 was withdrawn from the account of complainant maintained with bank bearing No.35365170923. It is further averred that four crops including Narma and Gawar were covered under the insurance policy. The complainant had sown the Narma crop in his agricultural land situated at village Sukhchain and as per the said scheme, the Narma crop was covered under the insurance policy. As per the policy, damages caused to the crop due to natural calamities like natural fire, lightening, hailstorm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood, inundation and landslide, draught, dry spells, pest and diseases etc. were/are covered under the policy and the insurer is liable to indemnify the losses caused to the crops of the insured farmers. It is further averred that crop of the Narma of complainant was damaged to the extent of 100% due to natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught. Because the area, where the land of complainant is situated has been notified by the State Government for the benefits of the above said Yojna, the State Government directed the Agriculture Department to inspect the spot and to ascertain the damages caused to the insured crops of the farmers and to report about the same. Accordingly, the Agriculture department visited the agricultural land of the complainant as well as other agriculturists and duly inspected the spot and during inspection, it was found that the Kharif, 2016 i.e. Narma crop of the complainant has been damaged to the extent of 100% and a report in this regard has been submitted to the Agriculture Department and Agriculture Department further submitted the same to op no.2. It is further averred that normally farmers gains Rs.40,000/- per acre from the Narma crop every year and the complainant sown crop of Narma in his six acres of land and has suffered loss of Rs.15,000/- per acre and the total amount comes about Rs.one lakh on account of damages to his insured crop and he is entitled for the same. That op no.1 had to pay the insurance amount on account of damages caused to the crop of complainant under the aforesaid policy on the basis of recommendation of op no.2. The op no.2 had to produce the report regarding the damages caused to the crops of farmers including the complainant and accordingly the report regarding damage to the Narma crop of complainant was submitted to op no.1 by op no.2. That as per the scheme of the Government, Narma crop was notified and insured in the area under PMFBY scheme and all other farmers had already received compensation on account of damages caused to the insured crops from op no.1 i.e. insurer, hence the complainant being entitled to the compensation, approached to the ops and requested them to disburse the amount of compensation from where he came to know about the negligence committed by op no.2. The complainant approached to op no.2 telephonically as well as personally and also written some letters regarding his claim. The op committed gross negligence on their part and acted deficiently. That the complainant being aggrieved approached to the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sirsa and requested to provide the proper information regarding his claim or regarding the notification of the government as well as the insurance policy of ops in respect of PMFBY but the said authority only provided the survey report regarding damages of crop in the notified area including the area of complainant. That the complainant is still making rounds and rounds to the offices of ops and has been making repeated requests to indemnify his claim under the aforesaid policy but the ops are avoiding his requests on one false pretext or the other and finally about two days ago, they have flatly refused to indemnify the claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint. 

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage for alleged crop. It is submitted that as per complainant himself, loss of crop has been effected at village Sukhchain which has not been insured by insurance company. As per declaration form submitted by Bank, village Singhpura was insured with insurance company for crop whereas complainant is claiming for coverage of village Sukhchain which is not covered under policy scheme and thus, complaint is liable to be dismissed on both the ground of non coverage of village and non coverage of crop cotton 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 Singhpura but complainant is claiming for village Sukhchain 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, while reiterating the plea of preliminary objections, 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 Suraksha Beema Yojna and 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 as per the information received from the bank, the complainant insured his crop at village Singhpura, Distt. Sirsa and the village Sukhchain, District Sirsa is not insured and does not quality for yield claim as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, so no claim can be put forwarded on the shoulder of answering op. It is further submitted that the concerned bank is liable for deducting the premium amount from the account of complainant and also to deliver correct information after inspecting the complainant’s field because the concerned bank charged “inspection charges” from the KCC account of the complainant. It is further submitted that the insurance company rightly repudiated the claim of complainant as per the information received by the bank. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.

3.                Opposite party no.2 resisted the complaint vide separate reply on the ground that upon receipt of the information from the complainant, the answering op immediately sent the premium payment verification to the op no.1 and also about the clerical mistake regarding the resident of the complainant, in which they were requested to correct the resident of the complainant and treat as VPO Sukhchain instead of VPO Singhpura. It is further submitted that complainant has raised a crop loan under KCC facility from the answering op and got his crops insured with op no.1. It is denied for want of knowledge that the complainant had ever sown Narma as alleged and if it is proved that he has sown Narma, the complainant has not given the details of acreage of the same. The complainant is required to prove regarding the inspection by the officials of the agriculture department and their report regarding the loss. It is denied that the answering op ever produced any report regarding the loss, if any. It is further submitted that it denied that the answering op was negligent while mentioning the name of the village, although this is was clerical mistake and after the information from the complainant, the op no.1 has been informed for the same and requested for the correction of the same. The answering op is not responsible to pay any compensation as alleged. It is further submitted that answering op has debited the amount in the account of the complainant by crediting the same in the account of op no.1 as per the terms of the scheme. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 has been made.

4.                The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and also tendered copy of pass book Ex.C1,  copy of statement of account Ex.C2, copy of kisan card Ex.C3, copy of jamabandi Ex.C4, copy of letter of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sirsa Ex.C5, copy of letter written by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. to the Joint Director (State) Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Panchkula, Haryana Ex.C6, copy of decision on C.M. Window Ex.C7, copy of email Ex.C8, copy of declaration form Ex.C9 and copies of list of farmers Ex.C10 and Ex.C11.  Op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Bhupender Pal Neer, Branch Manager Ex.RW1/A, OP no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory Ex.R2, copy of declaration form Ex.R3, copy of list of farmers Ex.R4 and copy of letter Ex.R5.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                Learned counsel for complainant has contended that complainant has proved on record that the complainant is owner of agricultural land situated in village Sukhchain, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The complainant had obtained Kissan Credit Limit facility from opposite party no.2 and as per scheme, the crop of the complainant was insured with opposite party no.1 through op no.2. A sum of Rs.2776.80/- was debited by op no.2 in the account of complainant as premium for insurance for the crop of Kharif, 2016. It is also proved that Narma crop of complainant in Kharif 2016 crop season was destroyed due to natural calamities. The Agriculture Department had surveyed the agricultural fields of complainant and during inspection it was found that the kharif, 2016 (Narma crop) of the complainant has been damaged to the extent of 100% and a report in this regard has been submitted to the Agriculture Department and Agriculture Department further submitted the same to op no.2. It has been further contended that complainant approached the ops time and again for the payment of compensation. It has also been contended that non payment of compensation to the complainant clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service of ops.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 has contended that no coverage for alleged crop was there. The loss of crop has been effected at village Sukhchain which has not been insured by insurance company. As per declaration form submitted by bank, village Singhpura was insured with insurance company whereas complainant is claiming for coverage of village Sukhchain which does not fall under coverage of policy scheme and complainant is not entitled to any compensation claimed for. It has also been contended that insurance company cannot be questioned for proposal related disputes. The insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or by bank of complainant. It has also been contended that as per clause XVII of the operational guidelines, the Bank is liable for payment, if any for misreporting. It has further been contended that reports of agriculture department are not binding on the rights of insurance company as same are arbitrary and were prepared at the back of op no.1. The complainant never intimated to insurance company for any loss of crop and has concocted a false story of claim. The complainant has not placed on record proof of loss or weather index report. There is a limited coverage as per scheme. The present case of complainant is not clear about nature of loss and thus deserves dismissal. The yield based claims are always decided by Government or by Govt. agencies. The quantification of loss cannot be determined in absence of necessary survey. There is no privity of contract between complainant and op no.1 as the 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, the present complaint is not maintainable against op no.1. He has further contended that it is not an individual insurance policy like other insurance policies rather it is a group insurance scheme as per terms and conditions of the scheme. There is no direct contract between the complainant and op no.1. Ld. counsel for op no.1 has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & Anr. Versus Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & Anr. 2015 (4) CLT 545.

8.                Learned counsel for op no.2 has contended that complainant had raised crop loan from the bank and is holding KCC account with the bank. In order to get the crop of Kharif, 2016 insured with op no.1, op no.2 had deducted a sum of Rs.2776.80 from the account of complainant on account of premium and has deposited same with op no.1 without any loss of time and also sent declaration of the farmers of village Sukhchain alongwith list of farmers including the present complainant. It has also been contended that inadvertently, the name of village was mentioned as Singhpura instead of village Sukhchain in the declaration form. When the bank received complaint regarding non payment of claim from the complainant, the bank discussed the matter with the authorized representative of op no.1 and on his instructions sent a mail on 10.10.2016 to the concerned official with the request to pay the claim by correcting the name of village from Singhputa to Sukhchain.. There was no intention or malafidy on the part of op no.2 in sending wrong declaration qua the name of village rather it was only a clerical mistake. It is proved case of op no.2 that the premium received from farmer was duly paid to op no.1 under the group insurance scheme and therefore, it is legal obligation of op no.1 to compensate the complainant for the loss which he has suffered due to natural calamities in village Sukhchain. The complainant is entitled to compensation from op no.1 and not from op no.2, since the op no.2 was only acting as post office and the insurer is op no.1 who gave insurance coverage to the standing crop of the farmers like complainant. As such op no.1 should be directed to pay the compensation to the present complainant also.

9.                We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record.

10.              It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant is an agriculturist of village Sukhchain, Tehsil and District Sirsa and is holding a KCC account with op no.2 bank and has raised crop loan for Kharif, 2016. It is further undisputed fact that a sum of Rs.2777.80 was deducted by op no.2 from the account of complainant on account of premium for insurance of crop Kharif, 2016 which was allegedly paid by op no.2 to op no.1. It is further undisputed fact that the declaration of the members of group for insurance was filed alongwith list of farmers to op no.1 by op no.2 alongwith demand draft of Rs.8,80597.10.

11.              It is not disputed that insurance company op no.1 paid claim to the other farmers who were found entitled thereto. The bone of contention between the parties is qua wrong declaration of village made by op no.2 to op no.1 which shifts the liability to pay the compensation from one party to another party. Though, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.2 has strongly contended that there is only clerical mistake qua name of village in the declaration form submitted to op no.1 on the part of op no.2 but that does not absolve op no.1 from its liability to pay compensation to the complainant/ farmer, since op no.1 has received the premium of the crop insurance from complainant through op no.2. Further op no.1 has not returned amount of premium to the bank despite two mail sent by op no.2 which is Ex.R1 on file. On the other hand, there is specific plea of op no.1 that it is an admitted fact on record that a wrong declaration was made by op no.2 qua the name of village Singhpura though complainant belongs to village Sukhchain. There was insurance coverage of village Singhpura on the basis of this declaration of the complainant and not of village Sukhchain. So, if there is any liability to pay compensation that shifts on the shoulder of op no.2 as per clause 17 of the guidelines. The perusal of the declaration form Ex.C9 reveals that it finds mention the name of village as Singhpura and in the list of farmers which have been attached with the declaration form having name of farmers have also been shown as of village Singhpura. It is proved fact on record that complainant is resident of village Sukhchain having his agricultural land situated in village Sukhchain and this fact also finds mention in the account of the bank which was opened in the name of complainant and same is evident from the copy of pass book and copy of statement of account which are on file as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. So, it appears that the bank was having all relevant record regarding proof qua the residence as well as land of complainant at village Sukhchain, but however, the bank took it in a very casual and ordinary manner while making declaration of the farmers including present complainant showing their place of residence as well as of agricultural land at village Singhpura while knowing well that they are from village Sukhchain and their land is situated at village Sukhchain against which bank had made advancement of crop loan to the complainant. So, it appears from the evidence of the parties 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.  

12.              Since it is proved fact on record that complainant has suffered loss of his crop and according to complainant agricultural department had assessed loss and submitted their report on the basis of which other farmers of village have been paid compensation by op no.1, whose declaration was made by concerned bank showing their land holdings in village Sukhchain, but however, complainant has been deprived from getting compensation from the insurance company due to wrong declaration submitted by op no.2 to op no.1 which has definitely caused prejudiced to the rights of complainant.

13.              That as per clause XVII of the operational guidelines of the scheme which provides that the bank is liable to pay compensation to the farmers, if any mis-reporting has been made by bank to the insurance company. In the present case the bank has furnished a wrong declaration to the op no.1 as a result of which the insurance company insured the crop of Kharif 2016 of village Singhpura in the name of complainant though neither the complainant is resident of village Singhpura nor he is having any holding at village Singhpura. Moreover, 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, so the contract is interse between op no.1 and op no.2 qua terms and conditions of crop insurance. From the evidence of complainant, it is proved that complainant is holding land at village Sukhchain and is also resident of village Sukhchain but due to wrong declaration made by op no.2 to op o.1 qua name of village shown as Singhpura, 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 Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank & Anr. Vs. Singam Siva Sankar Reddy & Anr. (supra) 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.  

14.              In view of the above, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 to pay compensation to the complainant on the basis of report submitted by agriculture department at par with the other farmers of village Sukhchain 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 op no.1 stands dismissed. However, the op no.2 is at liberty to recover amount which will be paid to the complainant from op no.1 if same is payable to the bank under the terms and conditions of insurance contract arrived at between op no.1 and op no.2 or under any other law.  The op no.2 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:29.11.2018.                             Member                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                    Redressal Forum, Sirsa.