BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 252 of 2017
Date of Institution : 09.10.2017
Date of Decision : 19.12.2018.
Vinod son of Shri Rajeram, resident of V.P.O, Shakker Mandori, District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, SCO 147-148, Madhya Marg, Sector-9C, Chandigarh.
2. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Haryana.
3. Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Village Nahrana, District Sirsa, Haryana.
...…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. Rakesh Kashnia, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Smt. Rinku Lata, Govt. Pleader for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that he is farmer by profession. The complainant had mortgaged his share of land in Khewat no.388 (as per the jamabandi for the year 2012-2013) of village Shakker Mandori, which is approximately 4.5 acres with the op no.3 under Kisan Credit Card having the account number 81188800020936. That as per the Government Notification, after the introduction of crop insurance scheme, every farmer was informed by the concerned bank to give the details of their crop for the season so that the crop can be insured against the various natural calamities. It is further averred that thereafter complainant went to op no.3 and got his crop insured with op no.1. The complainant detailed about the crop for the kharif season of year 2016 to op no.3 and accordingly premium of Rs.2185.20 for the crop of cotton was deducted from complainant’s account and was deposited with the op no.1 by op no.3. That in the year 2016, the cotton crop of complainant was completely damaged due to the “white fly” and other natural calamity, which was fully covered under the Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It is further averred that complainant informed about the damage of crop to the ops No.2 and 3 and op no.2 alongwith other officials of the Agriculture Department and op no.1 visited the complainant’s field and prepared their report stating that crop has been really damaged. That as per report of Agriculture Department, the complainant is eligible for the sum assured i.e. Rs.24,000/- per acre alongwith interest @18% per annum but the opposite party no.1 has not paid the insurance claim to the complainant despite his several requests and visits to the ops. 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 further 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. 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 Beema Yojna and that it is the duty of field officer of concerned bank to inspect the crop of the complainant time to time because bank charged the inspection fee from KCC holder. It is further submitted that it is admitted fact that crop was damaged due to white fly which does not fall under coverage of localized risks. Further, as per report of the Agriculture Department the above village Shakkar Mandori does not qualify for the yield claim. No intimation ever received by 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 resisted the complaint on the ground that crop cutting report or survey of loss is to be prepared/ conducted by op no.2 and all other risks of coverage were to be finalized by insurance company and there is no role of op no.2 in this regard. The agriculture department is playing a role of threshold yield crop to calculate the loss on block wise and cannot go beyond the guidelines of the Government of India and the terms and conditions of the scheme of insurance. However, yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only and after completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme. The answering op surveyed the field of complainant regarding loss of crop and also the report has been prepared according to the operational guidelines of the Government of India and forwarded the same for necessary action and it is up to higher authorities as well as insurance company who has power to disburse the claim of complainant. The op no.2 also resisted complaint on the above lines as that of op no.1 and contents of complaint are also denied.
4. Opposite party no.3 filed separate written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is further submitted that as per Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification No.3009/Agri.II(1)-2016/10854 dated 17.6.2016, all the farmers availing seasonal agriculture operations 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 the complainant in loan application and the khasra girdawari submitted to the bank were insured and a sum of Rs.2,185-20 was debited in the account of the complainant as insurance premium. The 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. It is further submitted that no information was ever given by complainant to the answering op about alleged damages to his crops. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, application Ex.C1, copy of adhar card Ex.C2, copy of pass book Ex.C3, copy of jamabandi Ex.C4 and copies of letters and lists Ex.C5 to Ex.C11. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director Ex.RW1/A, copy of letter Ex.R1, copy of notification Ex.R2 and copy of operation guidelines of PMBFY Ex.R3. OP no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, Authorized signatory Ex.R4, copies of letters, copy of mail, copy of minutes of meeting, copy of notification alongwith annexures Ex.R5 to Ex.R35. OP no.3 produced affidavit of Sh. Chander Parkash Branch Manager Ex.RW3/1, copies of statements of accounts, copies of khasra girdawaris and copy of list etc. Ex.RW3/2 to Ex.RW3/15.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved case of complainant that complainant is owner of agricultural land detailed in complaint and holding KCC account with the opposite party no.3 bank. The complainant had raised agricultural crop loan of cotton for the kharif 2016 from op no.3. As per operational guidelines of the Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and notification of the Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department dated 17.6.2016, crop insurance was compulsory for loanee who had raised agricultural loan. The premium was deducted from the account of complainant by op no.3 which was paid by op no.3 to op no.1. The cotton crop of complainant was damaged for kharif 2016 due to climatic condition and white fly. Due intimation was given to ops and officials of ops no.1 and 2 visited at spot, surveyed and assessed the loss after following the procedure laid down under the provisions of notification and as per guidelines of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It has also been contended that crop of complainant was damaged. The agriculture department has submitted the report by which threshold yield of block Nathusari has been assessed as 606.78 Kgs. and the average yield of village Shakkar Mandori has been assessed at 247.38 Kgs. The complainant is entitled to compensation on the basis of the report of agricultural department and there is deficiency of service on the part of ops by not paying compensation to the complainant.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 has strongly contended that complaint of complainant is not maintainable as complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. There is no privity of contract between complainant and op no.1. No intimation of loss was given to op no.1. There is no liability of op no.1 to pay any compensation to the complainant. As per report of the Agricultural Department, the threshold yield of block Nathusari was 606.78 and the average yield of the block was 622.26. Since the average yield is higher than the threshold yield, as such op no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of op no.1. It has also been contended that while assessing the yield, the agricultural department has counted only two pickings and has not taken into consideration the third picking while assessing the yield. Moreover, loss of crop of village has been claimed by complainant, but however as per guidelines of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, the crop cutting experiment is to be made of the block. So, complaint of complainant is liable to be dismissed.
9. Learned Govt. Pleader for op no.2 has contended that present complaint is not maintainable against op no.2 and there is no liability of op no.2. Premium was paid to op no.1 by op no.3. The only obligation of op no.2 was to assess threshold yield and average yield after following the procedure laid down under guidelines of the PMFBY and notification dated 17.6.2016 issued by Under Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department. The statistics of the threshold yield and the average yield qua the block level as well as village level have already been submitted by op no.2 to the Director Agriculture Haryana and there is no liability of op no.2 to pay any compensation to the complainant. The threshold yield of block Nathusari is 606.78 and the average yield of village unit of Shakkar Mandori is 247.38 and the agricultural department has already written number of letters to op no.1 to pay compensation to the complainant and other farmers of village Shakkar Mandori and even in the meeting held under the chairmanship of Director, Agriculture Haryana, the officials of the insurance company were duly requested to pay compensation to the farmers of village Shakkar Mandori but to no effect.
10. Learned counsel for opposite party no.3 bank has contended that complainant is holding KCC account with the bank and advancement of loan was made for cotton crop of kharif, 2016. As per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, the premium was deducted from the KCC account of complainant which was paid on the same day to op no.1 by way of RTGS/NEFT. The loss of crop was assessed by agricultural department and the same is to be paid by op no.1 as per terms and conditions of insurance contract and there is no liability of op no.3 to pay any compensation. The bank has not received any compensation in the account of the complainant till date.
11. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
12. It is an undisputed fact between the parties that complainant is holding agriculture land in village Shakkar Mandori and is also holding KCC account with op no.3. It is also undisputed fact that complainant had raised agricultural crop loans for the cotton crop Kharif, 2016 from opposite party no.3 and got his land mortgaged with the bank. As per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and notification issued by State Govt. of Haryana agricultural department, the crop insurance for the loanee farmers was compulsory as a result of which the complainants got their cotton crop insured to the tune of Rs.60,000/- per hectare and premium of the insurance was deducted by op no.3 from KCC account of complainant which is evident from the copy of statement of accounts placed on record by complainant. It is also a proved fact that op bank had paid the amounts of premium to op no.1 by way of RTGS/ NEFT on the same day.
13. From the facts and evidence on record, it is proved fact that after receiving the premium from complainant through op bank, the kharif crop of cotton of complainant was duly insured with op no.1. It is also a proved fact on record that cotton crop of farmers like complainants of village Shakkar Mandori was damaged due to climatic condition and white fly and due intimation was given to the agricultural department. The agricultural department after receiving intimation of damage of crop visited village Shakkar Mandori alongwith officials of the insurance company. They followed the procedure of pickings of crop by conducting crop cutting experiment as per guidelines laid down under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and the provisions of clause 12 of the notification dated 17.6.2016 and they submitted their report to their higher authorities of agricultural department. As per report of the agricultural department, they have assessed threshold yield of cotton crop kharif 2016 at 606.78 and average yield of village Shakkar Mandori at 247.38 Kgs. per hectare. As per this report of agricultural department, the farmers of village Shakkar Mandori like complainant who got their cotton crop kharif 2016 insured with op no.1 deserves to be entitled for the damage of the crop and are entitled for compensation.
14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.1 has strongly contended that as per report of agricultural department, the threshold yield is 606.78 and average yield of block Nathusari is 622.26, as such the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation since he has not suffered any loss. No doubt, as per report of agricultural department, the block threshold yield is 606.78 and average yield of the block Nathusari is 622.26, but it is very pertinent to mention here that the average yield of village Shakkar Mandori is 247.38 as reported by agricultural department as per guidelines of PMFBY and clause 12 of the notification dated 17.6.2016 issued by agricultural department which provides the procedure for assessing the loss. Clause 12 (b) of the notification dated 17.6.2016 is reproduced as under:-
b) Standing Crop (Wide Spread Calamities)
i) Shortfall in yield will be calculated by comparing the Threshold Yield with the Actual Yield estimated through Crop Cutting Experiments (CCEs). The CCEs will be undertaken for different crops on a scale decided by the State Government keeping in view the acreage covered in the scheme in different IUs/ Blocks/ district/ State.
ii) In cases where require number of CCEs could not be conducted due to non-availability of adequate cropped area, the yield estimate for such IUs will be made by adopting the yield of next higher unit i.e. block. If the area in the block is also inadequate, the yield of the district will be adopted. If the area in the district is also inadequate, the yield of the nearest district will be adopted.
15. Since, as per report of the agricultural department, the crop cutting experiment was duly conducted in village Shakkar Mandori and damage was assessed and thereafter the average yield was assessed to the tune of 247.38 Kgs, so question of taking into consideration the block average yield does not arise. So, it is apparently clear that farmers are entitled to compensation on the basis of report submitted by agricultural department by which the threshold yield has been shown as 606.78 and average yield of village has been shown as 247.38.
16. Though from the evidence of opposite party no.1 it appears that after submission of report by agricultural department to their higher authorities by which threshold yield of block was shown as 606.78 and average yield of village was shown as 247.38, op no.1 did not come forward to challenge report of agricultural department nor they raised any protest as a result of which same had become final between the parties. Further more, the copy of the minutes of meeting of the Director Agriculture reveals that officials of insurance company had attended the meeting but however they did not raise any protest against the report by which threshold yield of block and average yield of village Shakkar Mandori was assessed. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has produced certain copies of pass books of account holders of other village namely Jogiwala in which compensation has been paid to farmers like complainant on the basis of assessment of the average yield of their respective villages.
17. Since it was only obligation of the agricultural department to conduct survey after receiving intimation of damage and to conduct crop cutting experiment and submit their report, as such present complaint for claiming compensation from op no.2 does not appear to be maintainable against op no.2. Similarly, there is no liability of op no.3 also as op no.3 only deducted the premium and paid the same to op no.1. As such complaint against ops no.2 and 3 stands dismissed.
18. In view of above, we partly allow the present complaint against opposite party no.1 and direct the opposite party no.1 to settle and pay the claim of the complainant on the basis of the report of agricultural department at par with all other farmers who got their crop insured through respective banks with op no.1 for the cotton crop kharif 2016 and get credited the amount of loss in their KCC accounts, after verification of ownership/ lease of land and verification of crops. We further direct the op no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The op no.1 is liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainants will be entitled to interest @7% per annum on the claim amount from the date of order till actual realization. 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:19.12.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
