BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 131 of 2018
Date of Institution : 16.04.2018.
Date of Decision : 06.11.2019.
Sanjay, aged 40 years, son of Shri Dharam Singh, resident of village Jogiwala District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 145-146, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.
- Primary Agriculture Credit Society, Kagdana Branch, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
...…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. H. L. Kamboj, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Smt. Renu Bala, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and he owns and possesses about 115 kanals land situated in village Jogiwala, District Sirsa. The complainant had sown cotton crop in May, 2016 in the kharif season of 2016 in four hectares out of his above said land. That complainant was loanee under Kissan Credit Limit facility from op no.2 vide account no.736 and as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, crop insurance was necessary for the loanee farmer. The complainant filed a proposal/ application in form Annexure-C under PMFBY and declared that he has sown cotton crop in his four hectares of land and he filled the address of insured unit as village Jogiwala, Block Nathusari Chopta and op no.2 debited Rs.1920/- as premium of crop insurance on 30.7.2016 and cotton crop of four hectare was got insured by op no.1 through op no.2. The sum insured was Rs.2,40,000/- i.e. Rs.60,000/- per hectare. It is further averred that threshold yield of the block Nathusari Chopta for the cotton crop of 2016 was 606.78 Kg. per hectare and the actual/ average yield of cotton as per crop cutting experiments of insured unit of village Jogiwala was 279.30 Kg/ hectare and as per PMFBY, if actual/ average yield of the insured crop remains less than threshold yield, farmer is entitled for crop insurance claim as per formula given in guidelines. It is further averred that said Narma 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 Jogiwala and submitted its report to the ops. The op no.1 thereafter settled the claim of the farmers of village Jogiwala, but very strangely left the complainant and few other farmers of village Jogiwala and did not pay any amount to them as compensation qua insurance claim. That the complainant contacted the officers of op no.1 and inquired about non payment of his insurance claim for damaged crop, whereupon the complainant was told that “firstly as per the insured details (bank farmer list and declaration document) provided by farmer’s concerned bank branch (PACS, Kagdana), the agricultural land of aforesaid farmer is notified and declared as village ‘Rampura Bagrian’ instead of village ‘Jogiwala’ as reported by complainant farmer and due to incorrect mapping of village, insurable interest could not get”. The complainant was shocked and surprised to hear this from the officer of op no.1, because he is farmer of village Jogiwala and not of village Rampura Bagrain. The complainant apprised the officer of op no.1 that he is permanent resident of village Jogiwala and owns and possesses his agricultural land in village Jogiwala and showed them his I.D. proof and proof of his landed property but the officer of op no.1 did not pay any heed to the same, rather stated that op no.2- bank has provided them the detail that he is the farmer of village Rampura Bagrian, so no compensation can be paid to him and thereby refused to entertain the claim of the complainant. It is further averred that it appears that op no.2 made a wrong report to op no.1 that complainant is a farmer of village Rampura Bagrian instead of village Jogiwala, which is negligence on the part of op no.2 and same has led to losses to the complainant. The op no.1 has also failed to appreciate the fact that complainant is a farmer of village Jogiwala by ignoring the documentary proof submitted by complainant about his residence and landed property. That in this manner, both the ops have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and thereby have put him to severe crop losses as well as also put him to suffer unnecessary harassment, agony and disappointment. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to make payment of Rs.1,29,528/- i.e. amount of sum assured to the complainant alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from Kharif 2016 till realization of the same, further to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.6500/- as litigation expenses.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Jogiwala which has not been insured by insurance company. As per declaration form submitted by bank, village Rampura Bagrian was insured with insurance company for cotton crop whereas complainant is claiming for village Jogiwala which is not covered under the policy scheme and thus, complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non coverage of alleged loss of village. It is further submitted that insurance company cannot be questioned for proposal related disputes. The role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with scheme of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done either by complainant himself or bank of complainant. The insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers. If any mistake is done by bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. It is further 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. The complaint is also not maintainable on the ground that village yield is greater than threshold yield which does not make insurance company liable for any claim under the scheme. The threshold yield provided by the government at the time of policy coverage for village Rampura Bagrian at block level was 606.78 only whereas actual yield is 622.26 which establishes that farmers are not eligible for any claim under scheme. Other preliminary objections that yield based claims are decided by Government and that present case of complainant is not clear about nature of loss, no privity of contract, non impleding of necessary parties and involvement of complicated facts and law are also taken. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied to be wrong, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 filed reply and submitted that op no.2 had already deposited the premium amount of the insurance policy in the name of village Jogiwala for further approval, hence there is no deficiency on their part in any manner. It is further submitted that it is wrong that op no.2 has supplied wrong information. Remaining contents of complaint regarding negligence are also denied.
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.C1, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C2, copy of proposal/ application Ex.C3, copy of pass book Ex.C4, Ex.C5, copy of email Ex.C6, copy of adhar card Ex.C7, copy of information under RTI Act Ex.C8 and copy of letter Ex.C9, copy of formula Ex.C10. On the other hand, op no.2 furnished affidavit of Sh. Satbir Singh Manager as Ex.RW2/A, copy of particulars of insurance Ex.R1 and copies of list of farmers Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. OP no.1 furnished affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory as Ex.R4.
7. As per allegations of complainant, the complainant owns and possess 115 kanal land situated in village Jogiwala and out of said land, the cotton crop in four hectare of land in Kharif 2016 was got insured by op no.1 through op no.2 on payment of premium of Rs.1920/- which was deducted from the account of complainant on 30.7.2016 by op no.2 and was paid to op no.1 and the crop of cotton was insured for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- i.e. Rs.60,000/- per hectare. The perusal of the complaint reveals that complainant has not mentioned Killa or Khasra number or khewat number of th eland which is owned and possessed by complainant. The perusal of evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has not placed on record any copy of khasra girdawari of his land showing the nature of the crop which he had sown during Kharif 2016, nor he has placed on record any other document from which it could be presumed that in Kharif 2016, he had sown crop of cotton in four hectares of land which was insured with op no.1 through op no.2 on payment of premium of Rs.1920/-. Nor complainant has placed on record any other document qua the damage of his standing crop. So, it appears that complainant has failed to prove his claim in the complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
8. 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 free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 06.11.2019. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
