BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 184 of 2018
Date of Institution : 11.06.2018.
Date of Decision : 06.11.2019.
Subhash Chander, aged 35 years, son of Shri Fusa 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. State Bank of India, Village Kaluana SAB 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. Rishi Sharma, 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 eight acres two kanals of land comprising in Khewat No.790, Sq. No.245, Killa No.1/1, 10/1 Sq. no.246, Killa No.4/2, 5/2/1, Sq. No.307, Killa No.1,2, 3/1, 3/2, 8/1, 8/2/2, 9, 10, 11, 12/1 situated in village Ganga, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. That on 29.8.2015, complainant raised a crop loan to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- under Kissan Credit Card Scheme from op no.2 and KCC account number is 3518976180. The op no.2 had got mortgaged the aforesaid land of complainant with it by way of registered mortgage deed. That at the time of advancement of the above crop loan, the op no.2 debited a sum of Rs.27/- on 21.6.2016 and Rs.3972/- on 30.7.2016 in the aforesaid KCC account of complainant towards insurance premium for insurance of crops 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 5.6 acres and gawar crop in 2.4 acres 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%. 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.1,53,000/- due to damage to his gawar and 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 since the complainant and like him other farmers who are farmers of village Kaluana, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa have not been paid any compensation. The complainant and other farmers were shocked, surprised and astonished to hear this from the officer of op no.2, because they are farmers of village Ganga and not of village Kaluana. The complainant and other farmers then approached the op no.1 and apprised the officer of op no.1 that they are permanent residents of village Ganga and own and possess their agricultural land in village Ganga and showed them their I.D. proof and proof of their 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 they are farmers of village Kaluana, so no compensation can be paid to them and thereby refused to entertain the claim of 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 Kaluana 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 complainant is a farmer of village Ganga. 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 and submitted that as per complaint, loss of crop has been effected at village Ganga which has not been insured by insurance company. As per declaration form submitted by Bank, village Kaluana of block Dabwali was insured with insurance company whereas complainant is claiming for coverage of village Ganga which does not fall under coverage of policy scheme and thus, complaint is liable to be dismissed on both the ground of non coverage of village and non coverage of crop as well. It is further submitted that role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with scheme of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana 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. 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. 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, while reiterating the contents of preliminary objections, it is submitted that survey report clearly highlighted crop damage due to “Bacterial Leaf Blight” and village Ganga did not qualify for claim settlement at village level yield estimation. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
3. OP no.2 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per Haryana Govt. Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification No. 3009/ Agri. II (1)-2016/ 10854 dated 17.6.2016, all the farmers availing seasonal agriculture operations (SAO Loans from Financial Institutions (i.e. loanee farmers) for the notified crops would be covered compulsorily under insurance from the notified insurance companies as per the guidelines of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare. Accordingly, the crops intimated by complainant in loan application and in Khasra girdawari submitted to the Bank were insured and a sum of Rs.3972 was debited on 30.7.2016 in the account of complainant as insurance premium and this amount was credited/ paid to op no.1 Insurance Company on 2.8.2016 through RTGS. It is further submitted that insurance of the crops is compulsory as per above notification and as such, the answering op has acted as per provisions of the above notification in the matter of insurance of crops of complainant and thereby debiting the insurance premium in his loan account. There is no negligence on the part of answering op. It is further submitted that it is made clear that there was no loss to the farmers of village Ganga as well as Kaluana as alleged. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
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 adhar card Ex.C1, copy of loss assessment report Ex.C2, copy of email Ex.C3, copy of statement of account Ex.C4, copy of jamabandi Ex.C5 and copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C6. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory as Ex.R1, copy of loss assessment report Ex.R2, copy of email Ex.R3, copy of statement of account Ex.R4, copy of list of farmers Ex.R5. OP no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Arun Kant Sharma, Branch Manager as Ex.RW1/A, copy of application form for agricultural credit Ex.RW1, copy of statement of account Ex.RW2, copies of jamabandis Ex.RW3 to Ex.RW5, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.RW6, copy of debit voucher Ex.RW7, copy of RTGS/ NEFT application form Ex.RW8, copy of statement Ex.RW9 and copy of UTR number Ex.RW10.
7. As per allegations of complainant, he owns and possesses eight acres and two kanals of agricultural land detailed in the complaint, against which he raised loan of Rs.five lacs from op no.2 vide KCC account No.3518976180. Further in crop season, 2016, complainant had sown narma crop in his 5.6 acres and gawar crop in 2.4 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%. In order to prove his allegations in the complaint, the complainant has relied upon report of Agricultural Department Ex.C2 by which it has been reported that there was loss of 8¼ acres of land due to rainfall with thunder storm. The complainant has further relied upon copy of email of Agriculture Department Ex.C3 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.C2. As per averments of complainant, he had sown crop of Narma in 5.6 acres of land, but however, this report Ex.C2 reflects that 8¼ acres 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.C2. Rather, the report Ex.C3 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.
