BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 29 of 2017
Date of Institution : 9.2.2017
Date of Decision : 14.3.2018.
Lal Chand son of Mam Raj, resident of village Dholpalia, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd IInd Floor, SCO-147- 148, Sector-9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
2. Punjab National Bank, Sirsa Road, Ellenabad.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rishab Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist and he is having KCC account number 4879000100021817. The land of complainant is situated in village Dholpalia, Tehsil Ellenabad. That complainant had sowed Narma crop on 68 Kanal 4 Marlas land (as mentioned in amended title but in original complaint he alleged 46 kanal 14 marlas) in May, 2016 and the insurance of the same was got conducted from Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and an amount of Rs.2800/- was deducted by the Bank on 28.7.2016 as premium amount. It is further averred that his aforesaid Narma crop has been damaged to the extent of 90% due to rain and he gave intimation in this regard to Punjab National Bank Ellenabad on 21.10.2016 and also on the same day, he gave intimation to the insurance company. It is further averred that despite of information given to the insurance company, no official of the insurance company took any action. Thereafter, he made a complaint to the C.M. Window, Sirsa on 15.11.2016 but to no effect. That complainant is a small farmer and he got insured his crop as per scheme of the Government and now he is making rounds to the offices for taking insurance amount of his damaged crop for the last three-four months but he was not listened. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections and 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 term 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 that as per the terms and conditions of this Yojna, this scheme falls in group insurance of concerned bank branch. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its separately reply asserted that on the receipt of information regarding loss from complainant, the answering op immediately informed op no.1 regarding the loss and after investigation they rejected the claim of complainant for the reason best known to them. The better information regarding the investigation is in the knowledge of op no.1. It is admitted to the extent that complainant had purchased a insurance policy from op no.2 and a sum of Rs.2800/- was paid to op no.2 on behalf of complainant on 28.7.2016. It is further asserted that no proof of any kind is available on the record regarding the loss of crop as alleged. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved case of complainant that he is having KCC account number 4879008800003182. The complainant had sowed Narma crop in May, 2016 and the insurance of the same was got conducted from Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna on payment of Rs.2800/- which was deducted by op no.2 on 28.7.2016 as premium amount from the account of complainant maintained with op no.2. He has further contended that 90% of cotton crop of complainant has been damaged and due intimation was given to ops no.1 and 2 on 21.10.2016 and 3.11.2016 and even the complaint was lodged with CM Window and to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa but no action was taken by anyone and complainant is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- on account of compensation for loss of crop/ damage of crop.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 has contended that as per the scheme lodged by Central Government Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, the case of complainant is not covered for compensation on account of loss/ damage of crop as it is group insurance scheme whereas the present claim of complainant is an individual damage of crop. In localized claims, three perils are covered under the scheme i.e. hailstorm, landslide and inundation affecting isolated farmers 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 has to be conducted by surveyor for decision of claim of farmers. 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 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. It has also been contended that complainant has not supplied proof of 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. The complainant has not placed on record any cogent and convincing evidence in support of his claim that loss was suffered due to natural calamity. As per scheme of insurance, except localized claims, all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by government agencies. There was no contract of insurance between complainant and insurance company and complaint of complainant is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for op no.2 has contended that complainant is only maintaining a KCC account with op no.2 and op no.2 paid amount of premium to op no.1 on behalf of complainant and no other role is on the part of op no.2. Intimation regarding loss of crop was received by op no.2 from complainant and thereafter they forwarded same to op no.1 without any further loss of time. It is a contract only between the complainant and insurance company and op no.2 has no concern with the claim of complainant. The complaint of complainant is not maintainable against op no.2 and same deserves to be dismissed.
9. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
10. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant has filed this complaint to get compensation for the loss of his cotton crop during the year 2016. There is allegation of complainant that he got his crop insured under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and paid the requisite insurance premium through op no.2 and due intimation was given on 21.10.2016 to op no.2 that crop of complainant has been damaged who further informed the op no.1. Complainant also lodged complaint with CM Window and Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa but no action was taken by anyone. In order to prove his allegations, the complainant has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. In support of claim of complainant Harchand and Goverdhan have also furnished their affidavits as Ex.CW2/A and Ex.CW3/A respectively. The complainant has also placed on record copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Tara Chand, Branch Manager as Ex.R1 and copy of document Ex.R2. OP no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory Ex.R3, copy of crop damage intimation Ex.R4 and Ex.R5.
11. No doubt, insurance scheme was launched by Union of India as Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and certain guidelines were framed regarding the regulations of terms and conditions of the insurance, coverage of the crops and the coverage of the area and it was suggested in the scheme that concerned State Governments will issue the notification in consonance with the scheme. In pursuant to that the State of Haryana issued a notification through Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department on 17.6.2016 in which relevant points were notified as under:-
1. Crops to be covered (Notified crops)
Cotton, Paddy, Bajra and Maize crops will be covered during Kharif 2016 & Wheat, Barley, Mustard and Gram crops during Rabi 2016-17.
2. Insurance Unit (IU)
The PMFBY will operate on the principle of “Area Approach” in the Insurance Unit (IU). The IU will be the revenue estate (village).
3. Area to be covered
The PMFBY will be implemented in the entire State on cluster approach. 4. Coverage of Risks and Exclusions
The following stages of the crop and risks leading to crop loss will be covered under the scheme.
- Prevented Sowing/ Planting Risk: Coverage of risk in case the insured area is prevented from sowing/ planting due to deficit rainfall or adverse seasonal conditions.
- Standing Crop (Sowing to harvesting): Comprehensive risk insurance will be provided to cover yield losses due to non-preventable risks, viz. Drought, Dry spells, Flood, Inundation, Pests and Diseases, Landslides, Natural Fire and Lightening, Storm, Hailstorm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane and Tornado.
- Post- Harvest Losses: Coverage will be available only up to a maximum period of two weeks from harvesting for those crops which are allowed to dry in cut and spread condition in the field after harvesting against specific perils of cyclone, cyclonic rains and unseasonal rains.
- Localized Calamities: Loss/ damage resulting from occurrence of identified localized risks of hailstorm, landslide, and inundation affecting isolated farms will be covered. General Exclusions: Losses arising out of war and nuclear risks, malicious damage and other preventable risks will be excluded.
5. Implementing agencies
1. Cluster- I Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
2. Cluster- IIBajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
3. Cluster-IIIICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
6. Farmers to be covered
a) All farmers including share- croppers and tenant farmers growing the notified crops in the IU will be eligible for coverage under the scheme.
b) All farmers availing Seasonal Agricultural Operations (SAO) loans from Financial Institutions (i.e. loanee farmers) for the notified crops would be covered compulsorily.
c) The scheme will be optional for the non-loanee farmers.
7. Indemnity Level
The indemnity level will be 90% in case of all the notified crops.
12. As per this notification, the isolated/individual farmers are not covered but however group of farmers are covered under the scheme. Since the case of complainant is of individual in nature and same cannot be said to be covered under this policy/ scheme as per notification dated 17.6.2016.
13. As per averments of complainant, cotton crop of complainant was damaged due to heavy rain fall but the perusal of evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has not placed on record any report of the Metrological Department qua heavy rain in those days in the area of village Dholpalia where the land of complainant is situated. As per the report submitted by the Joint Director Agriculture (Stats) Panchkula, copy of which has been placed on file by complainant himself as Ex.C10 reveals that letter written by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa that crop has been damaged due to disease which is not covered under the localize calamities as per the operational guidelines of PMFBY. Hence, individual farm level survey cannot be taken in this juncture. However, the Farmer would be eligible for claims on the basis of village level yield assessment exercise currently being undertaken by the government and final claims, if any would be settled on the basis of Crop Cutting Experiments at insured unit level as per PMFBY guideline page no.14 point no. XI. Assessment of loss/ shortfall in Yield.
14. Since, claim of complainant is not covered under the scheme under which he has not joined as a member of the group insurance as one of the beneficiary of the group insurance, so complaint of complainant does not appear to be maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.
15. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed but with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach any other authority in order to get relief for which he is found entitled thereto. 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:14.3.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
