BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 290 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 04.06.2019
Date of Decision : 25.04.2022.
Smt. Kamla Devi (aged about 46 years) wife of Sh. Sant Lal, resident of Village Mammar Khera, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Rania Branch, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. ABW Towers, Unit No. 511-512, 5th Floor, M. G. Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurugram- 122001 through M.D./ authority person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA……………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Gurtej Singh Brar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that she is an agriculturist having land measuring 31 Kanals 12 marlas situated in village Mammar Khera, Tehsil Rania District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2016-2017. The complainant is having crop loan limit account with op no.1 bank bearing account No. 8168010011905 and has mortgaged her aforesaid land. That as per Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna, the op no.1 bank got insured the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 season from op no.2 for which on 31.7.2017 op no.1 deducted the premium amount of Rs.2116.04 from the above said account of complainant. The complainant disclosed the fact of sowing the cotton crop in her aforesaid land to op no.1 and op no.1 remitted the premium amount to op no.2. It is further averred that said cotton crop grown by complainant in Kharif, 2017 was destroyed due to climatic conditions as the crop was attacked by white fly and intimation of damage was sent to the ops as the damage was covered under the above said scheme. The Agriculture department surveyed the fields of village Mammar Khera and submitted its report. The op no.2 thereafter settled the claim of other farmers of village Mammar Khera and paid insurance claims to the farmers of the village at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre but very surprisingly left the complainant and did not pay any amount to her. The complainant contacted to the officers of ops and enquired about non payment of her insurance claim for the damage to her crop but they did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. The complainant is legally entitled to get compensation for her damaged crop in 31 kanals 12 marlas of land at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre from the ops. The complainant approached the ops and requested them to admit her claim but they did not pay any heed and have refused to do so. That previously complainant filed complaint only against op no.1 bank and also filed an application to implead ICIC Lombard Insurance Company, which was allowed and thus present amended complaint is filed. That both the ops have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant due to which complainant has suffered financial loss and unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that premium is deducted as per the Central Govt. scheme and as per the proposed crop. The complainant has proposed in her loan application that she will sow the crop of paddy as kharif crop. She has availed the financial assistance in the shape of KCC limit as per paddy crop. The op bank has provided financial assistance to her on the viability of paddy crop. Hence, as per the instruction of complainant, answering op has deducted the amount from the account of complainant for the payment of insurance premium under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna and paid the same to insurance company op no.2 for insurance of paddy crop of complainant. It is further submitted that op bank has got insured proposed crop from the insurance company which is liable to compensate the complainant for damage of insured crop. It was the duty of the insurance company to visit the spot and insure the crop. If crop of paddy was not available on the spot and they have not insured the crop, then it was duty of insurance company to refund the premium of insurance. It is further submitted that at that time it was the duty of complainant to call the officials of insurance company at the time of visiting of officials of Agriculture Department. The answering op is not liable for any type of compensation and after accepting the insurance premium by insurance company, the matter for compensation is in between the complainant and insurance company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
3. Initially, op no.2 did not appear despite notice sent through registered cover and was proceeded against exparte. Thereafter, Hon’ble State Commission passed order regarding setting aside exparte proceedings against op no.2. Op no.2 filed separate written version raising certain preliminary objections that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Mammar Khera, Tehsil and District Sirsa due to the reason mentioned in the loss assess report “Rains not lead to Inundation” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of insurance policy. As such complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground given in the loss assess report alone. The 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. In the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for cotton crop of village Mammar Khera, but the alleged loss to the crop was not covered under the reason Inundation and Hailstorm. Other preliminary objections qua maintainability, non intimation, 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 and mis joinder of parties have also been taken. On merits, it is submitted that no intimation was ever received regarding loss of crop from complainant as well as any other agencies. However, the claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss occurred due to ‘Rains, but the same is not leading to Inundation which is covered for loss under the scheme and complainant has made a false and baseless story just to grab the compensation. It is not an individual insurance scheme like other insurance schemes 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 Commission by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme and thus, present complaint cannot be adjudicated before this Commission. All other remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of adhar card Ex.C1, copy of pan card Ex.C2, copy of statement of account Ex.C3, copy of jamabandi Ex.C4, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C5 and affidavit of Raghubir son of Sh. Ramji Lal Ex.C6.
5. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sushil Manager & Principal officer as Ex.RW1/A, application form for agricultural credit Ex.R1, copy of statement of account Ex.R2, detail of insurance Ex.R3.
6. OP no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. The complainant in order to prove her complaint has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which she has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. As per allegations of complainant, she had sown crop of cotton in her agricultural land in kharif, 2017 and same was got insured by op no.1 from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited op no.2 and op no.1 deducted amount of Rs.2116.04 as insurance premium from KCC account of complainant which is evident from copy of statement of account Ex.C3. The complainant has also tendered copy of jamabandi Ex.C4 to prove her ownership and has also furnished copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C4 to show that cotton crop was sown in her land. But perusal of evidence of op no.1 reveals that op no.1 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Sushil, Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.RW1 in which he has specifically deposed that complainant has proposed in her loan application that she will sow the crop of paddy as Kharif crop. She has availed the financial assistance in the shape of KCC limit as per paddy crop. The op bank has provided financial assistance to her on the viability of paddy crop. Hence, an amount of Rs.2116.04 was debited on 31.7.2017 in the account of complainant for the payment of insurance premium under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna and paid the same to insurance company for insurance of paddy crop of complainant. The op no.1 bank has also placed on file application form for agricultural credit Ex.R1 for availing crop loan which is signed by complainant in which it is proposed that she will sow paddy crop in Kharif season. The complainant never intimated the bank about the change of crop over her mortgaged land. The complainant has not placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that complainant at the time of advancement of loan did not give the schedule of above said crop to the op bank. The op bank had deducted the premium from the account of complainant and got paddy crop insured for kharif, 2017 and never got insured the cotton crop from the insurance company as claimed by complainant. The complainant has not placed on record any document or letter of intimation vide which she had ever informed op no.1 regarding change of crop from paddy to cotton. Since cotton crop of complainant was not got insured by complainant nor any intimation qua change of pattern of crop was ever given by complainant to op bank, so it appears that complainant is not entitled for loss of cotton crop which was not duly insured with insurance company and for which premium was not deducted by op bank. Moreover, complainant has also not placed on record any report of agricultural department/ survey report regarding damage of her cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and it is not proved on record that her cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 was damaged/ destroyed.
9. In view of above discussion, it appears that complainant has failed to prove her allegations in the complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence. As such, 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. Member Member President,
Dated: 25.04.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
