BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 209 of 2017
Date of Institution : 17.08.2017.
Date of Decision : 28.03.2019
Banwari Lal son of Shri Jivan Ram aged about 70 years resident of village Jogiwala, Tehsil & District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. Registered Office 19 Reliance Centre, Walchand, Hira Chand Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400001.
- Axis Bank Ltd. Corporate Office: 7th Floor, Axis House, C-2 Wadia International Centre P.B.Marg, Worli Mumbai-400025.
- Axis Bank Ltd. Branch Office, Fatehabad through its Branch Manager, Mauza Basti Bhiwan, Karan Plaza, Near Mini Secretariat, Fatehabad.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. ABW Towers, Uit No.511-512, 5th Floor M.G.Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurgram – 122001 through M.D/Authority person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER
Present: Sh. N.K.Daroliya, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 4.
Sh. Chirag Jain, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the Ops with the averments that he is an agriculturist by profession and is owner in possession of land measuring 10 acres being 1/5th share of land comprised in khewat No.177 khatuni No.327 to 330 Kitta 49, khewat No.180 khatuni No.333 kitta 5 vide jambandi for the year 2012-13 situated at village Jogiwala. The government of India had announced a crop insurance scheme for the farmers under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, as per this scheme those farmers who have availed credit card facility from the bank, crops of those farmers were insured and installment of the insured amount had been taken from the account of the farmers from the bank. As per the scheme, Op No.1 had insured the crops of the complainant and also withdrawn Rs.5493.93/- from the account of the complainant bearing No. 916030012401865 covering four crops including Narma and Gwar. The complainant had sown Narma Crop in his land but the crop to the extent of 100 % got damaged due to natural calamities/pests/diseases and draught. The officials of agriculture department had visited the land of the complainant as well as other agriculturists and during inspection it was found that Khariff, 2016 (Narma crop) had been fully damaged. It has been further averred that normally the farms gains Rs.40,000/- per acre from the Narma crop, thereby the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.4 lac on account of damage to his insured crop. The complainant approached the Ops for the compensation on account of damage occurred to the insured crop but he came to know about the negligence committed by Op Nos. 2 & 3 as initially the Op No.3 had charged Rs.5493.93/- from the account of complainant and debited the said amount for PMFBY but the Ops debited in excess amount of Rs.3238.87 and further reversed the same amount of Rs.3238.87 in the account of the complainant on 29.08.2016. Due to this negligence, the premium amount wrongly credited in the account of ICICI Lombard insurance company i.e. Op No.4 instead of Op No.1 despite the fact that the government had authorized and notified the Op No.1 as insurer of the crops under the said scheme. The Op No.4 was also authorized and appointed as insurer in some other areas other than the area of District Sirsa. The complainant has requested the Ops to pay compensation in respect of PMFBY and also approached to the Deputy Agriculture Director, Sirsa to provide proper information but the said authority only provided survey report regarding the damages to crop in the notified area. The complainant has run from pillar to post but the Ops have flatly refused to indemnify the claim of the complainant. As per the said scheme, the bank who provides the Kisan Credit Card facility to the farmers is liable and bound to debit the premium from the account of the farmers at its own and to credit the same in the account of the insurer company and it is sole duty and liability of the bank to get insured the notified crop with all efforts and diligence but the claim of the complainant has not been indemnified by the Op No.1 due to the fault on the part of the Op Nos. 2 & 3. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. OP No.1 filed in its reply has submitted that it is admitted case of the complainant as well as bank of the complainant that premium was wrongly paid to ICICI Lombard instead of Reliance General Insurance company. The insurance company cannot be held liable for the mistake of bank and its official. In absence of any consideration from the complainant or want of any written contract of insurance, the present complaint is not maintainable. As per the operational guidelines, the insurance premium ought to have received by insurance company within cut off date i.e. 31.07.2016 otherwise the insurance company was not bound to receive the premium of coverage of risk of farmers. It was the duty of the bank of farmer to pay insurance premium within time limit on or before the cut off date otherwise bank shall be responsible for payment of claims under condition No.XVII of the operational guidelines. The Op Nos. 2 & 3 have admitted that they had wrongly deposited the amount of premium in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Limited instead of Reliance General Insurance, therefore, the replying OP cannot be held liable for the mistake of the bank and the claim cannot be put forwarded on the shoulders of the replying OP. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Op Nos. 2 & 3 in their joint reply have submitted that the replying Ops are not the insurer of the crop of the complainant as it is Op No.1 who is completely negligent in denying to insure the crop of the complainant as the area of the District Sirsa fall under the cluster of Op No.1. Initially it was for the first time when the present scheme of PMFYB was launched and it were mandatory directions for all the banks to debit crop insurance premium of all the farmers who have availed crop loan from the bank complying with the directions on 30.07.2016 premium of Rs.5493.93 for the crop khariff 2016 was debited from the account of complainant and was credited in the account of ICICI Lombard Insurance Company under whom the area of Fatehabad falls under its cluster and on 29.08.2016 a sum of Rs.3238.87 which was wrongly deducted as excess premium by the centralized team, reversed back to the complainant’s account and an amount of Rs.2255.06/- as crop insurance was withheld for the crop insurance of the complainant and after a gap of sometime it had come into the knowledge of the replying Ops that premium has been wrongly credited to the ICICI insurance company on the basis of complainant having account with Axis Bank branch at Fatehabad and lateron when this fact has come into the knowledge of replying Ops the same premium was paid to the Op No.1 under whose cluster the land of the complainant falls and before the cutoff date premium and all required documents were sent to the OP nO.1 to get insure the crop of the complainant and other farmers for the crop khariff 2016 and in the end, on the refusal of the Op No.1 an amount of Rs.2255.06/- which were held by replying Ops to get insured the crops of the complainant, were credited in his account on 16.12.2016. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5. Op No.4 in its reply has submitted that the insurance company is playing a role of implementing agency in the scheme in accordance with guidelines prescribed by government. Furthermore, in localized claims, three perils are covered under the scheme i.e. hailstorm, landslide and inundation affecting isolated farms in the notified area. The present complaint is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction as the complainant has approached to this Forum with bad intention. The complainant has not submitted any proof of loss or weather report, therefore, in the absence of credible proof for loss of crop it cannot be believed that loss had actually happened in the village of complainant and no surveyor has been done for quantification of the loss. It has been further submitted that in the absence of any consideration from the complainant, the complainant cannot be considered as consumer under definition of consumer laws. It is complicated to determine genuineness and quantification of loss in summary proceeding. Moreover, no intimation was ever received regarding the loss of crop from the complainant. There is no negligence or fault on the part of replying OP and it is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5. Thereafter the parties led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The perusal of the record reveals that the in order to prove his case the complainant has produced affidavit Ex.C1, wherein all the facts mentioned in the complaints have reiterated, besides documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C15. On the other hand, OP No.1 & 4 produced affidavit of Suryadeep Singh, as Ex.RW1 and document Ex.R1, affidavit of Nishan Gera Ex.RW2, Ex.R2 whereas OP Nos.2 & 3 have produced affidavit of Sh.Vikas Goyal, Branch Manager as Annexure RW3/A, documents Ex.RW3/B to Ex.RW3/Z.
8. It is an admitted fact on record that the complainant is an agriculturist and is owner in possession of land measuring 10 acres being 1/5 share of land comprised in khewat No.177 khatuni No.327 to 330 kitta 49, khewat No.180 khatuni No.333 kitta 5 vide jamabandi for the year 2012-13 situated at village Jogiwala Tehsil & District Sirsa. The complainant being an agriculturist obtained the KCC facilities from Ops No.2 & 3 and in order to get his agriculture crop insured, as per guidelines of the Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, Op No.3 has deducted a sum of Rs.5493.93/- from the KCC account of the complainant on account of premium of insurance which was to be paid by the Op No.3 to the concerned insurance company. As per the plea of the complainant, the Op No.3 did not get deposit the premium with the concerned insurance company, as a result of which, the crop of the complainant cannot be insured well in time. There was a loss of agriculture crop due to natural calamities, as a result of which, the officials of the concerned department had assessed the loss of whole village of Jogiwala Tehsil & District.
9. The perusal of the written statement of the Op No.1 reveals that they have specifically taken the plea that the premium was wrongly paid to ICICI Lombard instead of Reliance General Insurance company. The insurance company cannot be held liable for mistake of bank and its official. In the absence of any consideration from the complainant, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as complainant is unable to establish any dire4ct relation with the insurance company. Insurance companies should have received the premium for coverage either from the 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, he concerned bank/ intermediaries shall be liable for payment of claims. Similarly, the Op No.4 has taken the same plea that as a matter of fact, the Op Nos. 2 & 3 have wrongly deposited the amount of premium towards the complainant in the account of the answering respondent and after that same was withdrawn by the Op No.2 &3 because the village Jogiwala falls in the cluster of District Sirsa and District Sirsa falls in the area of Op No.1. No intimation was ever received regarding the loss of crop as well as any other deficiency.
10. Though the complainant, in order to prove his complaint, has furnished his affidavit in which he has reiterated all the facts mentioned in the complaint and above documents, but the perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has not led any cogent evidence from which it could be presumed that there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.1 & 4 since the premium was wrongly deposited with Op NO.4 by Op Nos. 2 & 3, after deducting the same from the KCC account of the complainant. Though the village Jogiwala did not fall under the cluster of District Fatehabad where the Op No.4 is situated and the land of the complainant falls under the District Sirsa, therefore, the insurance coverage was to be provided by Op No.1. Similarly, from the perusal of the evidence of the complainant, it is also established that no premium was paid and declaration was made to the Op No.1 well within the prescribed period in order to get the crop insurance coverage of the land of the complainant by the Ops No.2 & 3. So, it appears that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1
In view of the above, the complaint against Ops No.1 & 4 stand dismissed and the application moved by the OP No.4 for deleting its name from the array of Ops is also disposed of.
Now, the bone of contention in between the complainant and Ops No.2 & 3 is that as per averments of the complainant, the amount of premium was deducted from the account of the complainant and the same was deposited in the account of Op No.4 wrongly by the Ops No.2 & 3 which was lateron withdrawn and the same was deposited in the account of the Op No.1, but however, the Op No.1 refused to accept the amount of premium as the same was not deposited well within the prescribed period.
On the other hand, though the bank has taken the plea that they had firstly deposited the premium wrongly in the account of Op No.4 which was lateron withdrawn and the same was deposited in the account of Op No.1 alongwith other requisite papers and declaration, but however, it refused to accept the same. Thereafter, they made request to the Op No.1 to settle and pay the claim of the complainant and also lodged complaint with the Agriculture Department against the OP No.1.The perusal of the written statement of the Op Nos. 2 & 3 reveal that they have not denied the fact that they had earlier deposited the amount of premium in the account of ICICI Lombard Insurance company under whom the area of Fatehabad falls under its cluster and on 29.08.2016 a sum of Rs.3238.87/- which was wrongly debited as a excess premium by the centralized team, reversed back to the complainant’s account and an amount of Rs.2255.06/- as crop premium was withheld for the crop insurance of the complainant and after a gap of sometime, it had come to their knowledge that the premium has been wrongly credited to the ICICI Insurance Company on the basis of complainant having account in Axis Branch Fatehabad and not on the basis of land situated of the complainant. Lateron, the premium was paid to the Op No.1 under whose cluster the land of the complainant falls and before the cutoff date all the requisite documents were also sent. The perusal of evidence of Op Nos. 2 & 3 reveals that they had not placed any document from which it could be presumed that they have deposited amount of premium alongwith requisite documents to the Op No.1 well within prescribed period. Rather the Ops No.2 & 3 admitted their mistake on their behalf and even also issued the letter Ex.C5. So, under these circumstances it will be presumed that crop of the complainant could not be got insured due to negligence and mistake of the Ops No.2 & 3.
14. 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 due to negligence on the part of Op Nos. 2 & 3, the crop of the complainant could not be insured. 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 after charging their service charges at the rate of 4%, so, the contract is interse between op no.2, 3 and op no.1 qua terms and conditions of crop insurance. From the evidence of complainant, it is proved that complainant is holding land at village Jogiwala but due to negligence and mistake on the part of op no.2 & 3, the complainant has not been paid any compensation by insurance company, 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.
15. In view of the above, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties no.2 & 3 to pay compensation to the complainant on the basis of report submitted by agriculture department at par with the other farmers of village Jogiwala 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. However, the ops no.2 & 3 are 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 ops no.2 & 3 and op no.1 or under any other law. The ops no.2 & 3 are 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:28.03.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
