BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 220 of 2018
Date of Institution : 04.09.2018.
Date of Decision : 14.11.2019.
- Kulwinder Singh, aged 40 years, son of Shri Shiv Raj Singh @ Raj Singh,
- Sukhjeet Singh, aged 36 years, son of Shri Shiv Raj Singh @ Raj Singh, both residents of village Desu Malkana, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
- Punjab National Bank, Kalanwali Branch, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. H.S. Aulakh, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
The complainants have filed the joint complaint alongwith an application under Section 12 (1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of complainants, in brief, is that they are agriculturists by profession and are owners in possession of land measuring 38 kanals 14 marlas, being 956/4137 share of land measuring 167 kanals 9 marlas comprising in Khewat No.379, Khatuni No.647 and had sown cotton crop in land comprising in Sq. No.20, Killa No.20/2, 19/1/2, 20/1, 19/2/2, Sq. No.20, Killa No.10, 9/2, 11, 12/1 out of above detailed total land, situated in village Desu Malkana, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa. The complainants had sown cotton crop in kharif 2016 crop seasons. It is further averred that complainants raised crop loan under Kissan Credit Limit facility from op no.2 and as per policy of the Govt. under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna, op no.2 got insured the said cotton crop with op no.1 and op no.2 debited amount of insurance premium in respective loan accounts of complainants. The op no.1, its officials and op no.2 had assured the complainants that in case of any damage to the crops due to any natural calamity i.e. rain, hailstorm etc., the complainants shall be fully compensated and that in case there is loss of crop due to above reasons to any individual farmer, then such individual farmer will be compensated. It is further averred that cotton crop grown by complainants in kharif 2016 crop season was destroyed due to heavy rain fall. The complainants then moved an application to the Branch Manager, PNB, Kalanwali on 31.8.2016 for paying them compensation which was duly received on 31.8.2016, but op no.2 did not take any action on the same. Then again on 19.1.2017, another application was moved by complainants to op no.2, but of no use. The complainants also made a telephonic call at the call centre of op no.2 on its toll free number and official of op no.1 namely Mahabir who used to remain present at PNB, Kalanwali was also requested in this regard, but he also did not take any action. The ops neither conducted any survey of the fields of complainants. It is further averred that complainants told to the ops that their neighbourer farmers had also grown cotton crop, which was also damaged due to heavy rainfall and they were having their loan accounts with State Bank of India, Pipli Branch. Their fields were inspected by the officers of Agriculture Department and the insurance company which insured their crops also paid them compensation for loss of crops, but the ops did not care for the same and not settled the claim of complainants. That complainants also moved an application on C.M. Window on 8.3.2017 which was disposed of by C.M. Window vide its report dated 26.3.2018 that action will be taken against the erring officer/ official of insurance company/ bank and compensation will be got paid to the complainants. But till date, no such compensation has been paid to the complainants. It is further averred that complainants are legally as well as factually entitled to get compensation from the ops alongwith interest. That complainants approached the ops and requested them to admit their claim but they did not pay any heed and have refused to do so a week back. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking 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. 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. 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 complainants 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. It is further submitted that complainants never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainants cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim. Mere 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 that block yield is greater than threshold yield, 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 taken. On merits, it is submitted that op no.1 used to do insurance of crop on the information supplied by the Bank i.e. op no.2 and there is no direct contract in between complainant and op no.1 as present crop insurance is done under the group insurance scheme. Further, while reiterating the pleas of preliminary objections, it is submitted that present complaint is not maintainable on the ground that actual yield i.e. 698.25 kgs/ hectare is greater than threshold yield i.e. 630.18 kgs/ hectare which does not make insurance company liable for any claim under the scheme. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op bank had sent an amount of Rs.804.38 on 16.1.2017 to op no.1 and thereafter an amount of Rs.1170/- was again transferred from the account of complainant Kulwinder Singh on 2.8.2016 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna. Similarly, an amount of Rs.1165/- was transferred from the account of complainant Sukhjeet Singh to op no.1 company on 30.7.2018 and thereafter, an amount of Rs. 734.50 was transferred on 29.12.2017 from the account of complainant Sukhjeet Singh under the scheme. In this way, the op bank sent the above said amounts from the accounts of complainants to op no.1 company as premium amount under the aforesaid scheme and these amounts were accepted by op no.1 and same were never returned to the op bank. As such, the whole liability for compensation under the said scheme is that of the op insurance company and not of op bank. The insurance contract is in between the complainants/ farmers and the op no.1 insurance company. The op bank has nothing to do with it. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainants in order to prove their complaint have furnished their affidavits as Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A in which they have deposed and reiterated all the averments made in their complaint. They have also furnished copies of applications Ex.C1 to Ex.C4, copy of email Ex.C5, copy of detail of complaint Ex.C6, copy of application moved on CM Window Ex.C8, copy of letter Ex.C9, copy of CM Window action taken report Ex.C10, copy of jamabandi for year 2011-2012 Ex.C11, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C12, copy of statement of account of one Jagtar Singh Ex. C13, copy of statement of account of one Mrs. Baljinder Kaur Ex.C14. On the other hand, op no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar, Branch Manager as ExR1, copy of application Ex.R2, copy of final report Ex.R3, copy of letter Ex.R4, copy of account ledger inquiry Ex.R5 and Ex.R6. OP no.1 furnished affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory as Ex.R7.
8. As per allegations of complainants, they had sown cotton crop in kharif 2016 in their fields measuring 38 kanals 14 marlas and due to natural calamity i.e. rain and hailstorm, the crop was fully damaged. Due intimation was given to bank vide two different applications/ letters and claim was also lodged with the insurance company, but however, same has not been paid.
9. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainants were holding KCC loan accounts with op no.2 and had availed crop loan from op no.2. As per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, crop insurance is compulsory for the farmers who avail crop loan in order to insure their crop and to secure loan of the bank. It is also undisputed fact that op bank had deducted amounts of premium from the accounts of complainants and thereafter same were transferred in the account of insurance company.
10. As per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, it is group insurance scheme and not an individual insurance scheme and in order to assess loss of farmers, the crop cutting experiment is to be conducted by agricultural department in case they receive any intimation regarding loss of crop from farmers at village level or block level. It is undisputed fact that complainants did not lodge any complaint with agricultural department nor any request was made to conduct crop cutting experiment in village Desu Malkana in order to assess loss of the farmers. Though, op no.1 has taken the plea that average yield of village was more than threshold yield declared by the State Government, but however, op no.1 has not placed on record any document in support of its contention. But however, there is also no plea of the complainants that crop cutting experiment was ever conducted in their village by agricultural department in order to assess the loss of the farmers. Nor the complainants have placed on record any document in support of their contention. Rather from the letter of op no.1 Ex.C7 placed on record by complainants themselves, it is clear that final claim, if any was to be settled on the basis of crop cutting experiments at insured unit level as per PMFBY guidelines page No.14, point no.XI, but the complainant has failed to place on record any crop cutting experiment report of the agricultural department regarding loss of crop of farmers of village in this regard. Further, the op no.2 has placed on record copy of final report as Ex.R3, the perusal of which reveals that farmer was told that threshold yield of village Desu Malkana is 630.18 Kg/ Hec. whereas average yield is 698.25 Kg/ Hec., so complainant is not entitled to any claim. But the complainants have not placed on record any cogent and convincing evidence in support of their claim.
11. 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 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.
