BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 15 of 2019
Date of Institution : 15.01.2019
Date of Decision : 22.1.2020.
Rajpal, aged about 48 years son of Shri Jaswant, resident of village Nathusari Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Reliance Insurance Company Ltd., having several branches throughout India including one such branch at SCO No.147-148, Sector-9, Chandigarh.
2. PACS, Nathusari Kalan, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………..…… MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA…………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Mahesh Pareek, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant and his family members are agriculturists having their agricultural land situated in village Nathusari Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa and they are wholly dependent upon the income of agricultural land. That complainant is having his account with the Sirsa Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., having one of its branch at village Nathusari Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa i.e. op no.2. It is further averred that as per scheme of the Central Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna, the crops of cotton and paddy sown in the land of complainant were insured with op insurance company against loss, damages of the crop by natural reasons and causes under the scheme. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.2850/- was deducted by op no.2 from the account of complainant and was transferred to the account of op no.1 against the said insurance of crops. It is further averred that paddy crop of about 16 acres of complainant was damaged in kharif 2016 due to excessive rains and the complainant is entitled to insurance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as per above said scheme. That average yield in the area of Nathusari was assessed at 606.78 Kgs as reported by the agriculture department of Haryana. That the matter was reported to ops to carry out the survey and to pay the losses accordingly by a written memo dated 26.9.2016 which was duly received by the official of op no.2 but the ops never paid the insurance claim of the damage crop to the complainant. It is further averred that above said act on the part of ops amounts to deficiency in service and they have caused harassment to the complainant. That previously, complaint no.136/2017 was filed by complainant but same was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.12.2017 with the permission to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action and the cause of action still continuous to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. 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 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 also taken. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and above said pleas are also reiterated and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Initially opposite party no.2 appeared and sought adjournments for filing written statement but despite availing opportunities, op no.2 did not file written statement and ultimately op no.2 opted to be proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant and op no.1 then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and have perused 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 the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of jamabandi Ex.C1, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C2, copy of notification Ex.C3, copy of short term loan document Ex.C4, copy of pass book Ex.C5, copy of application Ex.C6. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory as Ex.R1.
7. The perusal of evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has not placed on record any report of the agricultural department in order to prove the fact that there was any loss to the crop of the complainant nor he has placed on record any document to show that average yield of the village was less than threshold yield of the village. Moreover, complainant has not impleaded agricultural department as a party in the complaint nor he has placed on record any proof of loss of his crop. The complainant has also not proved on record any special girdawari regarding damage to the crop of complainant and other farmers of the village was got done by the agricultural department. So, the complainant has failed to prove his complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
8. In view of our above discussion, 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. Member Member President,
Dated:22.01.2020. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
