BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 128 of 2019
Date of Institution : 13.03.2019.
Date of Decision : 10.10.2022.
Bhagirath, aged about 65 years son of Shri Sheokaran, resident of village Khajakhera, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited 4th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh-150002 with which the crop of applicant was insured (empanelled Private Insurance Company under the Scheme).
- Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………….…….. MEMBER.
Present: Sh. B.C. Bhatiwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The case of complainant in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and he is owner in possession of agricultural land as per his respective share out of the total holding comprised in Khewat No.65 Khatuni No. 75, Khewat No.66 Khatuni No. 76, Khewat No.233 Khatuni No.269 to 271, Khewat No.314 Khatuni No. 359, Khewat No.321 Khatuni No.366 and sown cotton crop in Sq. No.10 Killa No.4 (8-0), 7(8-0), 22(7-16) Rect. No.27, Killa No.2 (8-0), Rect. No. 36 Killa No.23/2(1-15) 24(6-9) 25/1(1-4), Rect. No.41 Killa No.4 (8-), 5(8-0), 6/1 (4-12), 15/2(4-12) in 1/4th share situated in village Khajakhera as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013. That complainant is having bank account/ kisan credit card account number 81688800018051. It is further averred that as per scheme of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna launched by Central Govt. of India, the op bank got insured the crop of complainant and an amount of Rs.2387.39 as insurance premium was deducted on 31.7.2017 from the above said bank account of complainant, as such the rabi/ kharif crop of 2017 sown by complainant was fully covered under the said scheme. The bank authorities also fully assured the complainant for the payment of sum assured in case of any damage to the crop of complainant. It is further averred that whole of narma crop sown by complainant in his above said land Kharif, 2017 was destroyed/ damaged due to attack of white fly disease and thus the complainant suffered heavy loss. That seasonal crop is only source of earning of the complainant and his family, but the insurance company mentioned the paddy crop of its own without any spot inspection. It is further averred that complainant has spent a sum of Rs.10,000/- per acre on the sowing, cultivation, irrigation and spray etc. in order to safeguard the cotton crop from the attack of insects/ disease etc. That after damage of whole cotton crop of kharif 2017, complainant being legally entitled person approached the op bank and lodged the claim but op bank just in order to avoid its legal liability simply asked the complainant to approach op no.3 being the Local Monitoring Committee under the said scheme and also to provide compensation for the damaged crop. The complainant approached the op no.3 and requested them to do survey and assess the loss of cotton crop suffered by complainant and also to make payment of compensation through op no.2 being the insurer but op no.3 also failed to redress the grievance of complainant despite his several visits. The complainant also approached op no.2 for disbursement of compensation but to no effect. It is further averred that thereafter instead of payment of any compensation for his damaged crop, the ops have refunded Rs.1922.20 in the above said bank account of complainant, whereas they have deducted amount of premium of Rs.2387.39 from the account of complainant and refunded only Rs.1922.20 despite the fact that after deducting the premium, the crop of complainant was fully insured and ops are bound to pay compensation. That by taking false and frivolous stands, the ops have denied the genuine claim of insurance and have caused unnecessary harassment 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 complainant had proposed to the answering op bank at the time of taking the financial assistance as loan that he will sow crop of paddy as kharif crop and wheat as Rabi crop. The complainant has never informed the op no.2 bank that he has sown crop of kapas and gawar as kharif crop. If the complainant had changed the crop in his fields, it was the duty of the complainant to inform the op bank well in time in this regard. It is further submitted that answering op has advanced the CC limit of Rs.5,85,000/- to the complainant for the crop of paddy as kharif crop as proposed by the complainant. The answering op bank has debited the account of complainant for the amount of Rs.2387.39 for paying the same as insurance premium for the kharif crop of paddy and paid the same to op no.2 company. It is further submitted that op no.2 has accepted the premium and in this way, the crops of complainant were got insured. If the op no.2 has not insured the crop of complainant, then it was the duty of op no.2 to return the insurance premium to the complainant. It is further submitted that if the op no.2 has accepted the premium, it is presumed that crops of complainant were insured. The matter regarding payment of insurance amount is in between complainant and op no.2 company and answering op has nothing to do with it. It is further submitted that in case of any damages to the crops in the fields of complainant, the compensation is to be paid by op no.2 and not by op no.1 bank. The contract of insurance is in between the complainant and op no.2. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
3. Op no.2 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage of alleged loss, insurance company cannot be quested for proposal related disputes, not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, 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 etc. It is further submitted that 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 complainant or by bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied. It is submitted that claim of complainant was rejected as crop loss occurred due to rains but the same is not leading to Inundation which is covered for loss under the scheme and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.3 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections as taken by op no.2. It is submitted that answering op is only liable to conduct the survey/ CCE’s experiments and yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only on completion of necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by answering op within specific time period as prescribed in operational guidelines of the Government of India. Remaining contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
5. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.
6. On the other hand, op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R1, village wise tabulation sheet Ex.R2 and copy of Haryana Government notification dated 13.06.2017 Ex.R3. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar, Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R4, application for agricultural loan Ex.R5.
7. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing opportunities.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA on behalf of op no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.
9. The complainant is claiming insurance claim amount for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. However, op no.1 bank has taken a specific stand that complainant had proposed to the op no.1 bank at the time of taking the financial assistance as loan that he will sow crop of paddy as kharif crop and wheat as Rabi crop. The op no.1 bank has further pleaded that complainant has never informed the bank that he has sown crop of Kapas and Gawar as kharif crop. If complainant had changed the crop in his field, it was the duty of complainant to inform the op bank well in time in this regard. It is also the specific stand of op no.1 bank that bank has advanced loan amount of Rs. 5,85,000/- lacs to the complainant for the crop of paddy as kharif crop as proposed by complainant and bank has debited an amount of Rs. 2387.39 for paying the same to op no.2 as insurance premium for insurance of his kharif crop of paddy. The op no.1 bank has also placed on file application for agriculture loan as Ex.R5 which is duly signed by the complainant, the perusal of which reveals that at the time of taking loan from the op no.1 bank, the complainant declared the pattern of crop as paddy in Kharif season and wheat in Rabi season and at the viability of paddy crop, the loan amount was sanctioned by the bank to the complainant and cash credit facility is being given to him on annual basis on the viability of paddy crop. The complainant has not placed on file any document to show that he ever informed the op no.1 bank regarding change of pattern of his crop. Since cotton crop of complainant was not got insured by op no.1 bank nor any intimation qua change of pattern of crop was ever given by complainant to op no.1 bank, it appears that complainant is not entitled for loss of cotton crop which was not insured with insurance company and for which premium was not deducted by op no.1 bank. If the complainant changed the crop from paddy to cotton, intimation of change of crop should have been given by the complainant to the op no.1 bank. Since, no intimation regarding change of crop has been given to the op no.1 bank, therefore, complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct.
10. 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.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 10.10.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
