BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 543 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 13.09.2019
Date of Decision : 18.05.2023.
Madan Lal aged about 46 years son of Shri Ji Sukh, 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 he is an agriculturist having land measuring about 45 kanals 14 marlas being 1/2 share of land measuring 91 kanals 7 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 279 Khatuni No.456, Rectange No. 75 and 76 total Kittas 15 vide jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 situated in village Sadewala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. He has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on his above agriculture land through account No. 81688800009840. That as per scheme of Govt. of India i.e. Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, premium amount of Rs.2442.08 was deducted by op no.1 from his account on 31.7.2017 and was credited to op no.2 for insurance of his crop of Kharif, 2017, but however, copy of policy was not supplied to him despite his request. The crop of Kharif, 2017 in his 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 his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. That complainant approached the ops many times and requested to pay the claim for damages to his crop but ops have failed to indemnify his 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 his loan application that he 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 him in his loan application. It is further submitted that answering op has provided him facility of cash credit on the viability of paddy crop. If he has changed the crop then it was his 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 him. 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 he 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, his affidavit Ex.C4 and letters/ reports of Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Sirsa as Ex.C5 and Ex.C6.
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 his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 whereas op no.1 bank has specifically asserted that complainant himself declared in his loan application at the time of availing agricultural loan facility that he 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 he should have informed the op no.1 bank so that his cotton crop could be insured. Since complainant himself declared that he will sow paddy crop in kharif season and has not informed the op no.1 bank through any letter/ application that he 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 his cotton crop. Moreover, complainant has not properly proved the damage to his cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 as he has only placed on file letters/ reports 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 his 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 his affidavit Ex.C4 has not stated a single word that he has not availed any crop loan for paddy crop and he 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 his 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.
