BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 174 of 2017
Date of Institution : 19.7.2017
Date of Decision : 03.01.2019.
Jagdish Parshad, aged 48 years, son of Shri Ram Partap, resident of village Chilkani Dhab, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Model Town, Delhi Road, Hisar, District Hisar.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd., Mallekan Branch, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa, 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. JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an agriculturist and owns and possess about 30 acres of land in village Chilkani Dhab, Tehsil Ellenabad District Sirsa. That complainant out of his above 30 acres of land had sown cotton crop in 13½ acres of land in Kharif 2016 crop season whereas in the other land, he had sown Gawar and paddy crops. That complainant raised a crop loan under Kissan Credit Limit facility from op no.2 and as per policy of the Govt., the op no.2 got insured the crops with op no.1. For the Kharif 2016 crop, the op no.2 debited a sum of Rs.9300/- on 17.8.2016 in the said loan account of complainant as crop insurance premium. That the said cotton crop grown by complainant in Kharif 2016 crop season was destroyed due to climatic conditions. The Agriculture Department had surveyed the agricultural fields of village Chilkani Dhab and submitted its report to the ops. The op no.1 thereafter settled the claim of other farmers of village Chilkani Dhab and also paid the insurance claim to farmers of the village at the rate of Rs.9500/- per acre but very strangely left the complainant and did not pay any amount to him. That the complainant contacted the officers of op no.1 and inquired about non payment of their insurance claim for damaged crop whereupon the complainant was told that only paddy crop had been got insured by op no.2- bank and thus no compensation for cotton crop can be paid. The complainant was highly surprised and astonished to hear this because he had categorically informed the op no.2-bank that he had sown Gawar, paddy and cotton crops in his 30 acres of land, but the op no.2 in utmost gross negligent and careless manner got insured only paddy crop in kharif 2016 crop season. In this manner, the complainant due to gross negligent, deficient and careless act and conduct of op no.2 could not get compensation for his damaged crop of cotton. That complainant is legally as well as factually entitled to get compensation for his damaged cotton crop grown in 13½ acres of land in Kharif 2016 at the rate of Rs.9500/- per acre from the ops and ops are under legal obligation to pay the same to the complainant. That complainant approached the ops and requested them to admit his claim but they did not pay any heed and have refused to do so a week back. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. OP no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections and explained about the scheme. 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 submitted that complaint is not maintainable on the ground that block yield is greater than threshold yield which does not make insurance company liable for any claim under the scheme. The threshold yield provided by Government at the time of policy coverage for block Nathusari was 606.78 only whereas actual average yield for loss of cotton crop provided by government is 622.26 which establishes that farmers are not eligible for any claim under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It is further submitted that yield based claim was to be paid only if block average yield is found less than threshold yield but in the present case, block average yield is already high and thus there is no liability of insurance company for any yield claim. It is further submitted that crop had been damaged due to white fly which does not fall under coverage of localized risks. That as per operational guidelines, yield of crop was to be decided by government and farmers cannot question it in any court of law. It is further submitted that it is evident from Form 2 of Government that only two pickings were completed by farmers instead of three pickings which makes the case suspicious just to take money from public fund. In absence of adequate picking of crop, actual yield cannot be determined and complainant is himself liable for his own negligence. 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 that it is 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 it is admitted fact of complainant that crop was damaged due to white fly which does not fall under coverage of localized risks. No intimation ever received by the answering op and they never visited the field of complainant. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed separate written statement raising certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that at the time of taking of loan from answering op bank, 30 acres of paddy was shown by complainant in the loan application. The op bank authorities considering his paddy crop in his land and considering his requirement of paddy crop fixed the viability at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre. The second crop has been shown as wheat crop and the viability of this crop has been fixed at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre. If the complainant has changed the crop later on, the complainant was required to inform the bank authorities in this regard. The op no.2 bank had made payment of the insurance premium to op no.1 for insuring the paddy crop. The op no.1 was required to insure the crop by inspecting the spot. It is further submitted that if the paddy crop was not existing at the spot, then in that situation, the op no.1 company ought to have returned the amount of premium. As the op no.1 had accepted the amount of premium, therefore, the op no.1 is liable to pay the insurance amount regarding any crop in the fields of complainant. Hence, the op no.1 is liable and responsible for payment of insurance amount regarding loss of any of the crop in the land. Remaining contents of complaint are 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. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.P1 and also placed on record copy of pass book Ex.P2, copy of jamabandi for the year2012-2013 Ex.P3, copy of girdawari Ex.P4, copy of application Ex.P5. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager Ex.R1, copy of application for retail agriculture loan Ex.R2. OP no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur authorized signatory Ex.R3, copy of notification of Haryana Government Ex.R4 with annexures R5 to Ex.R8, copies of letters Ex.R9, Ex.R10, copy of form-2 Ex.R11, copyof list Ex.R12 and copy of minutes of meeting Ex.R13.
7. The perusal of the evidence of complainant reveals that there is specific allegation of complainant that complainant had sown cotton crop in 13½ acres of land in kharif 2016. The complainant raised a crop loan under Kisan Credit limit and got his crop insured by paying insurance premium of Rs.9300/- which was debited from the account of complainant by op no.2 and was paid to op no.1. The agricultural department had surveyed the fields of village Chilkani Dhab and submitted its report to the ops and thereafter op no.1 settled the claim of other farmers of village Chilkani Dhab and paid claim at the rate of Rs.9500/- per acre qua damage of cotton crop. On the other hand, there is specific plea of op no.2 bank that op bank had made payment of insurance premium to op no.1 insurance company for insurance of paddy crop as the crop loan was raised by complainant for paddy crop. Though complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.P1 in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint but he has never deposed that he has not raised loan for paddy crop nor he has deposed that paddy crop was not got insured by op bank from where he has raised loan and got premium amount transferred in the name of op no.1. The op bank has furnished affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager Ex.R1 in which he has specifically deposed that the op no.2 bank had made payment of the insurance premium to op no.1 insurance company for insuring the paddy crop. Though complainant has claimed insurance claim for the cotton crop which was not got insured from op no.1 through op no.2 and it is proved fact on record that complainant raised loan from op bank for paddy crop and bank in consequence to that got paddy crop of complainant insured with op no.1 after paying premium and also filed declaration form. Since cotton crop was not insured by op no.1, as such complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation qua damage of cotton crop.
8. In view of the above discussion, there is no 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. President,
Dated:03.1.2019. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
