BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 183 of 2018
Date of Institution : 11.06.2018.
Date of Decision : 06.11.2019.
Richhpal Singh, aged 35 years, son of Shri Mani Ram, resident of village Ganga, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., IInd Floor, SCO 147-148, Madhyamarg, Sector 90C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager (Crop).
2. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Ganga Branch, Tehsil Dabwali, 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.
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan, Advocate for 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 complainant, in brief, is that complainant is an agriculturist by profession. He owns and possesses about nine acres land comprising in Khewat No.1, Khatuni No.72, 74, 77 situated in village Ganga, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. That in 2016, complainant raised a crop loan to the tune of Rs.9.50 lacs under Kissan Credit Card Scheme from op no.2 vide KCC account number 81618800017767 and op no.2 had got mortgaged the aforesaid land with it by way of registered mortgaged deed. The complainant also maintains a saving bank account with op no.2 bearing account number 81610100024582. It is further averred that at the time of advancement of above crop loan, the op no.2 debited a sum of Rs.5239/- on 26.7.2016 in the aforesaid KCC account of complainant towards insurance premium for insurance of crops of complainant and thereby got insured the crops of complainant with op no.1 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It is further averred that in crop season, 2016, the complainant had sown narma crop in his nine acres out of aforesaid 11 acres of land, which was duly insured with op no.1. However, due to untimely rainfall with thunder storm, the said Narma crop of complainant got damaged to the extent of 40-45% due to logging and bacterial leaf blight. It is further averred that field of complainant and other farmers of village Ganga were inspected by the officers of Agriculture Department on 14.10.2016 and the inspection report was duly forwarded to the ops. The op no.1 thereafter settled the claim of farmers of village Ganga and also paid the insurance claim to farmers of village Ganga but very strangely left the complainant and few other farmers of village Ganga and did not pay any amount to them as compensation qua insurance claim. The complainant suffered loss of Rs.2,02,500/- due to damage to his narma crop and the complainant and other farmers of village Ganga contacted the officers of op no.1 and inquired about non payment of their insurance claim upon which they were told that the reason for non payment of compensation will be conveyed to op no.2 bank. Thereafter, on 28.10.2017, the complainant was told by op no.2 that as intimated by op no.1 through email dated 26.10.2017, such compensation has been paid to the farmers of village Ganga and that provided account number i.e. 81610100024582 is not of kharif 2016-17 insured database and op no.2 was asked to review and recheck this account number thoroughly with the Kisan Credit Card Passbook of the aforesaid farmer and re-share again with correct figures and data. The complainant was shocked and astonished to hear this from the officer of op no.2, because the account given above was the saving bank account of the complainant, whereas his KCC account bears number 81618800017767. It is further averred that complainant lodged a protest with the officer of op no.2 about furnishing wrong account number to op no.1 which led to rejection of his claim. Thereafter, complainant approached op no.1 and apprised the officer of op no.1 about his correct KCC account number and showed them the passbook of KCC account, but he did not pay any heed to the same and stated that compensation cannot be paid to him and thereby refused to entertain the claim of complainant. It is further averred that it appears that op no.2 furnished wrong account number to op no.1, which is negligence on the part of op no.2 and same has led to the losses to the complainant. That op no.1 has also failed to appreciate the fact that op no.2 supplied and furnished wrong account of the KCC loan account of complainant by ignoring the documentary proof submitted by complainant. That in this manner, both the ops have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and have caused harassment and severe loss to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. 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 and 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 for want of jurisdiction. 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 decision of said department would be binding on all state Government/ Insurance Company/ Banks and farmers. 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 privity of contract, non impleading of necessary parties and involvement of complicated facts and law are also taken. On merits, while reiterating the contents of preliminary objections, it is 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 eligible for Individual or Farmer Level survey, as the aforesaid farmers have intimated the crop damage due to ‘Bacterial Leaf Blight’ which is not attributable to Localized or Notified Risks as per PMFBY Operational Guidelines page no.26, (Point No. XV) Localized Risks. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. OP no.2 filed written statement submitting that if the insurance amount has not been paid by op company to complainant, the answering op cannot be held liable and responsible for same. It is the dispute between complainant and op no.1 company. The amount sent by op bank to op company on behalf of complainant was accepted by op company, therefore, op no.1 is liable to pay the insurance amount regarding any damages of the crops in the fields of complainant. It is further submitted that correct information and details of the amount and loan account number etc. were given/ furnished by op bank to the insurance company and there is no negligence of any kind on the part of answering op in any manner. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties 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 all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of loss assessment report Ex.C1, copy of email Ex.C2, copy of pass book Ex.C3, copy of jamabandi Ex.C4 and copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C5. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Vikas Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex.R1 and copy of list of farmers as Ex.R2 and copy of statement of account as Ex.R3. OP no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory as Ex.R4, copy of email Ex.R5, copy of declaration form Ex.R6 and copy of list of farmers Ex.R7.
7. As per allegations of complainant, he owns and possesses about nine acres of agricultural land detailed in the complaint, against which he raised loan of Rs. nine lacs and fifty thousand from op no.2 vide KCC account No.81618800017767. Further in crop season, 2016, complainant had sown narma crop in his nine acres of land which was got insured from op no.1 through op no.2 which deducted amount of premium. Due to untimely rainfall with thunder storm, crop of narma was damaged to the extent of 40-45% due to logging and bacterial leaf blight. In order to prove his allegations in the complaint, the complainant has relied upon report of Agricultural Department Ex.C1 by which it has been reported that there was loss of 9 acres 4 kanals of land due to rainfall, logging and bacterial leaf blight. The complainant has further relied upon copy of email of Agriculture Department Ex.C2 by which it has been reported that “it is informed that, Survey report clearly highlighted crop damage due to “Bacterial Leaf Blight’ in addition to this, due to inadequate crop loss details submitted by the complainant, the crop loss intimation was not eligible under Farmer Level crop loss claim settlement. Secondly, village Ganga did not qualify for claim settlement at village level yield estimation as per yield data provided by Govt. of Haryana in Kharif- 2016. Hence, no claim was established for aforesaid farmer.” So, it appears from this report of agricultural department that village Ganga did not qualify for claim settlement at village level yield estimation as per yield data provided by Government of Haryana in Kharif, 2016 and no claim was established by complainant.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for insurance company has also strongly contended that yield of the village is greater than threshold yield i.e. 628.02 kgs/hec which does not make insurance company liable for any claim under the scheme. Learned counsel for complainant has not denied the figure of yield, but however, he has contended that farmer/ complainant has suffered loss to the extent of 40/45% as per Ex.C1. As per averments of complainant, he had sown crop of Narma in 9 acres of land, but however, this report Ex.C1 reflects that 9 acres 4 kanals of land was inspected by agricultural department which does not support claim of complainant. Further, it may be personal loss of crop to the complainant, but loss cannot be assessed at village level on the basis of this report Ex.C1. Rather, the report Ex.C2 of the agricultural department clearly finds mention that farmers of village Ganga did not qualify for claim settlement at village level yield estimation. So, it appears that complainant has failed to lead cogent and convincing evidence in order to prove his allegations in the complaint that complainant has suffered loss alongwith other villagers. Since it was a group insurance scheme and not for individual one, so the loss was to be assessed by agricultural department by crop cutting experiments at block level and since actual yield is higher than the threshold yield, as such complainant is not entitled to any insurance claim.
9. 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 as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:06.11.2019. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
