BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 544 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 13.09.2019
Date of Decision : 18.05.2023.
Lajwanti aged about 74 years wife of Shri Om Parkash, resident of village Sadewala, 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 its Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. K.R. Taak, 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 about 174930/345557 share of land measuring 84 kanals 16 marlas (as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) vide jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 situated in village Sadewala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. She has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on her above agriculture land through account No. 81680100111269. That as per scheme of Govt. of India i.e. Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, premium amount of Rs.2327.33 was deducted by op no.1 from her account on 31.7.2017 and was credited to op no.2 for insurance of her crop of Kharif, 2017, but however, copy of policy was not supplied to her despite her request. The crop of Kharif, 2017 in her village including crop of complainant was destroyed and as such complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per acre for the loss of her cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. That complainant approached the ops many times and requested to pay the claim for damages to her crop but ops have failed to indemnify her loss whereas some of the villagers have already received compensation. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has proposed in her loan application that she will sow crop of paddy in Kharif season. Accordingly premium amount debited in the account of complainant on 31.07.2017 was transferred to op no.2 for insurance of kharif crop of complainant as proposed by her in her loan application. It is further submitted that answering op has provided her facility of cash credit on the viability of paddy crop. If she has changed the crop then it was her duty to inform the ops. Accordingly answering op has paid the premium to the insurance company for insurance of proposed crop. The insurance company has not raised any objection as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018 and accepted the premium for insurance of crop of complainant. Hence it is presumed that crop of complainant was fully insured and op no.2 is liable to compensate the complainant regarding any loss caused to her. If op no.2 has not insured the crops of complainant, then it was their duty to refund the amount of insurance premium. It is further submitted that after acceptance of premium, the matter of claim etc. is between the insurance company and the farmer as insurance company has accepted the premium without any objection and has never refunded the same. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 prayed for.
3. Op no.2 also filed its written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage of alleged loss, insurance company cannot be questioned for proposal related disputes, not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, 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, 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 bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that no intimation ever received regarding the loss of crop from the complainant as well as any other agencies and version of complainant that she approached to the officers of op no.1 is false one. However, the claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss occurred due to Rains but same is not leading to Inundation, which is covered for loss under the scheme and complainant has made a false, bogus and baseless story just to grab the compensation. It is also submitted that 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 with bad intention by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme and thus, present complaint cannot be adjudicated before this Forum in absence of filing of complaint before appropriate agency by the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered copies of documents i.e. statement of account Ex.C1, jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 Ex.C2, khasra girdawari Ex.C4, her affidavit Ex.C4 and letter/ report of Assistant Statistical Officer, office of Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa as Ex.C5.
5. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Naveen Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex.R1 and application form for agricultural credit Ex.R2.
6. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. The complainant has claimed insurance claim amount for the damage to her cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 whereas op no.1 bank has specifically asserted that complainant herself declared in her loan application at the time of availing agricultural loan facility that she will sow Paddy crop in Kharif season and wheat crop in rabi season and accordingly at the viability of paddy crop, the loan amount was sanctioned and paid to the complainant. In this regard op no.1 bank has placed on file loan application as Ex.R2 in which pattern of crop has been declared by the complainant as paddy in Kharif season and wheat in Rabi season and from this document it is clearly evident that at the viability of paddy crop, loan was sanctioned and paid to the complainant. It is further case of op no.1 that if complainant has changed the pattern of crop i.e. from paddy to cotton then she should have informed the op no.1 bank so that her cotton crop could be insured. Since complainant herself declared that she will sow paddy crop in kharif season and has not informed the op no.1 bank through any letter/ application that she has changed the pattern of crop, therefore, op no.1 bank got insured paddy crop of complainant and paid insurance premium amount to op no.2 for insuring paddy crop of complainant. Since, no cotton crop of complainant was not insured with op no.2 and for which no premium amount was paid to op no.2, therefore, complainant cannot claim insurance claim for the damage to her cotton crop. Moreover, complainant has not properly proved the damage to her cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 as she has only placed on file letter/ report of the Assistant Statistical Officer office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture department, Sirsa in which it is mentioned that the average yield of village Sadewala in Kharif, 2017 was 81.30 Kgs. per hectare but complainant has not placed on file data of threshold yield of block of her village and in absence of threshold yield, it cannot be said that there was loss to the cotton crop of complainant. Further more, as premium amount was deducted by op no.1 bank for paddy crop on the declaration of the complainant and there is no report about loss of paddy crop and cotton crop of complainant was not insured, therefore, complainant is not entitled any claim amount from any of the ops. Even the complainant in her affidavit Ex.C4 has not stated a single word that she has not availed any crop loan for paddy crop and she is not getting that crop loan facility for paddy crop and is getting for cotton crop. As such complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by her own act and conduct.
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 after due compliance.
Announced : Member President,
Dated: 18.05.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
